The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then you need to stop using the wholly inaccurate and totally misleading phrase "starved of energy", since very clearly the economy is not starved of energy. Do you understand?
So you are now finally admitting that all of this fuss was over your misinterpretation of the phrase "starved of energy". Thank you.

You claim not to get this, but, nevertheless, the phase was properly constructed and used. Your lack of physics knowledge has caused you not to understand it, but you are simply wrong. You can't hold others responsible for your ignorance of physics and the terminology used in a serious discussion.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have to. It just adds support to the idea that the economy is currently starving for energy because of declining EROEI.
Wrong, the opposite is happening, the economy is swamped with energy because of the current over production of oil resulting in the low price. There are tankers full of oil just sitting at the docks because the oil is not needed. Saying that the economy is starving for energy is simply not supported by any evidence at all!

Statements like that is exactly why this thread is in the pseudoscience section.
 
Wrong, the opposite is happening, the economy is swamped with energy because of the current over production of oil resulting in the low price.
Then why doesn't the economy just soak up all that "cheap" excess energy?

Statements like that is exactly why this thread is in the pseudoscience section.
This thread is in the pseudoscience section because you guys failed to make any convincing, logical argument against the Etp model or its stark implications. The management was getting embarrassed and felt they needed to step in. They want the Etp model suppressed and they will do anything to accomplish their nefarious goal.*

Good timing too, since the markets are about to crash!

*I feel it is acceptable to speculate freely on the conspiracy to suppress the truth of the coming apocalypse, since we are now in the pseudoscience section. I hope that is okay.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
If the total EROEI of oil for civilization (including all the energy used in the production, refining, and distribution of oil) is not above 2:1, the economy cannot grow. The Etp model states that the 2:1 point was crossed in 2012
But our economy is growing. So either your statement is wrong or you do not have the necessary qualifiers in your statemtent
 
Then why doesn't the economy just soak up all that "cheap" excess energy?
---Futilitist:cool:
There is an over supply. That means there is more oil than is needed. How and why would we 'soak up' the excess? I guess my company could make more parts than are needed by the customer and we could throw them away and I could drive an extra 50 miles to work in the morning but that seems sort of silly doesn't it?
 
But our economy is growing. So either your statement is wrong or you do not have the necessary qualifiers in your statemtent
It is not growing organically. It is being stimulated by extraordinary central bank policies. If it weren't for all that intervention, the economy would be shrinking.

There is an over supply. That means there is more oil than is needed. How and why would we 'soak up' the excess?
If the economy would grow faster, we could sure soak up the excess. Why isn't that happening?*

*Hint---It is because while there appears to be a surplus of "cheap" energy, the economy is actually being starved of energy due to the falling EROEI of oil. Get it?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
So you are now finally admitting that all of this fuss was over your misinterpretation of phrase "starved of energy". Thank you.

You claim not to get this, but, nevertheless, the phase was properly constructed and used. Your lack of physics knowledge has caused you not to understand it, but you are simply wrong. You can't hold others responsible for your ignorance of physics and the terminology used in a serious discussion.
Excuse me. The misunderstanding - if we choose to call it that - is down to your bizarre and wholly unjustifiable abuse of the phrase "starved of energy". Starved of energy can only mean "deprived of the required amount of energy" and do you now concede that there is no evidence whatsoever that the required amount of energy is not available?

If you insist that the required amount of energy is available, then the economy is not starved. If you insist that it is starved then there must be a shortfall in the amount of available energy.

This does not require a degree in physics to understand. This is the kind of vocabulary exercise conducted in primary school. If you cannot understand the foregoing ...........
 
*I feel it is acceptable to speculate freely on the conspiracy to suppress the truth of the coming apocalypse, since we are now in the pseudoscience section. I hope that is okay.
Sure it is fine. However, saying that there is a world wide conspiracy that is so pervasive that forums on the internet are part of the conspiracy does not make you look particularly rational!
 
Excuse me. The misunderstanding - if we choose to call it that - is down to your bizarre and wholly unjustifiable abuse of the phrase "starved of energy". Starved of energy can only mean "deprived of the required amount of energy" and do you now concede that there is no evidence whatsoever that the required amount of energy is not available?

If you insist that the required amount of energy is available, then the economy is not starved. If you insist that it is starved then there must be a shortfall in the amount of available energy.

This does not require a degree in physics to understand. This is the kind of vocabulary exercise conducted in primary school. If you cannot understand the foregoing ...........
We have covered this boring semantic subtopic quite enough already. Thank you.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
So you are now finally admitting that all of this fuss was over your misinterpretation of the phrase "starved of energy". Thank you.

You claim not to get this, but, nevertheless, the phase was properly constructed and used. Your lack of physics knowledge has caused you not to understand it, but you are simply wrong. You can't hold others responsible for your ignorance of physics and the terminology used in a serious discussion.



---Futilitist:cool:
You're the one using the wrong words. Maybe you should get a dictionary.
 
*Hint---It is because while there appears to be a surplus of "cheap" energy, the economy is actually being starved of energy due to the falling EROEI of oil. Get it?
I get that you ignore evidence that does not support your beliefs. Pretending something is not true does not mean it is false, it means you are deluding yourself.
 
You're the one using the wrong words. Maybe you should get a dictionary.
Maybe you should get a life. Why are you interested in commenting on this topic?

Sure it is fine. However, saying that there is a world wide conspiracy that is so pervasive that forums on the internet are part of the conspiracy does not make you look particularly rational!
I figure to use a tongue in cheek approach. All in good fun. Besides, the thread is in the pseudoscience section. How rational are you to be spending time commenting here?

I get that you ignore evidence that does not support your beliefs. Pretending something is not true does not mean it is false, it means you are deluding yourself.
Side stepping my question is not the same thing as answering it. Here is the question again:

So why isn't the economy growing without the help of the central banks?




---Futilitist:cool:
 
This thread is in the pseudoscience section because you guys failed to make any convincing, logical argument against the Etp model or its stark implications.
Actually, this thread is in pseudoscience because you have been incapable of making a substantive argument to support your argument and frankly, it reads like pseudoscience.

The management was getting embarrassed and felt they needed to step in.
I cannot speak for my colleagues, but the only embarrassment on my part is that it got to 70+ pages before we did step in.

They want the Etp model suppressed and they will do anything to accomplish their nefarious goal.*
I see the foil hat is on a tad too tight...

Good timing too, since the markets are about to crash!
Oh good grief!

*I feel it is acceptable to speculate freely on the conspiracy to suppress the truth of the coming apocalypse, since we are now in the pseudoscience section. I hope that is okay.
Pseudoscience is not the conspiracy forum. There is a reason why I did not put this in the conspiracy forum.

So you are now finally admitting that all of this fuss was over your misinterpretation of the phrase "starved of energy". Thank you.
Perhaps you should refrain from using words that you do not mean to use. People took your words at their meaning. That isn't their mistake, but entirely on you for having used the incorrect terms to begin with.

You claim not to get this, but, nevertheless, the phase was properly constructed and used. Your lack of physics knowledge has caused you not to understand it, but you are simply wrong. You can't hold others responsible for your ignorance of physics and the terminology used in a serious discussion.
They applied the terminology correctly. You did not.

To be blunt, you used terms that you are now wholly incapable of supporting.

Trying to now change the meanings of the terms because they do not suit your narrative is no one else's fault. This one is all on you, I'm afraid.

Perhaps you could notice that I already have. You are just repeating Ophiolite's silly question.
We would not be asking for clarification and evidence if you already had.

What you have posted actually contradicts you. For example, the paper you cited here, does not actually support your position.
 
I figure to use a tongue in cheek approach. All in good fun. Besides, the thread is in the pseudoscience section. How rational are you to be spending time commenting here?
You really, really need to identify when you are joking; there is no way to figure out if what you are writing is you joking or not!

So why isn't the economy growing without the help of the central banks?

I know that the Fed has the interest rate is low at this time and that is good for growth, I also know that the fed is raising rates because of the relatively strong economy. I do not know why the economy is not growing faster - there is no easy answer. If you ask 10 different economist you will get 10 different answers.

I know what you think, but that is just unevidenced (and downright misrepresentation of the the evidence) speculation.
 
We have covered this boring semantic subtopic quite enough already. Thank you.
Semantics is not boring. I am, however, not surprised that you would find anything that seeks to place precision into communication a distraction and an inconvenience.

I think enough has been said for any casual reader to understand the fundamental nonsense of your claim. Thus, for the last time, for a while.

Futilist claims the economy is starved of energy.

Any and all reasonable readings of that phrase require that there must be a shortfall of energy.

Futilist denies that this is so. This either means that he is unable to provide evidence to justify his claim, or that he does not understand what his words mean. In each case it leaves in a position where his ideas can be safely ignored.

I reserve the right to comment further on any more egregious remarks you make on this or any other topic.
 
You really, really need to identify when you are joking; there is no way to figure out if what you are writing is you joking or not!


I know that the Fed has the interest rate is low at this time and that is good for growth, I also know that the fed is raising rates because of the relatively strong economy. I do not know why the economy is not growing faster - there is no easy answer. If you ask 10 different economist you will get 10 different answers.

I know what you think, but that is just unevidenced (and downright misrepresentation of the the evidence) speculation.
One thing that is for sure, though, is that a shortage of energy is not the issue.

We have no power cuts, transport fuel is relatively affordable to most household budgets, industry is not constrained by lack of energy and even Fute admitted, a few weeks ago, that we have a worldwide glut of oil (see post 1284 for example). A glut!

So Fute needs to explain how we can simultaneously have a glut of oil and be energy-starved.
 
Last edited:
I see the foil hat is on a tad too tight...
I think you are a tad too uptight to understand my sense of humor.

"I will be watching this thread and I will be monitoring it much more closely."

You weren't kidding. :eek:

Your "moderation" seems *WAY* heavy handed to me. I think the readers should be able to judge the debate for themselves. Why the sudden need for micromanaging? I think it is better to let the conversation flow more naturally.

What you have posted actually contradicts you
I don't think so. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, then.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Anyone can predict anything, but the Etp model is *WAY* better than a wild assed guess.

The Etp model is a physics based model of the total energy used world-wide in the production, refining, and distribution of oil. It directly measures the rate of entropy production in the entire petroleum production system....

[snip]

That is why I believe we are about to have an apocalypse.



---Futilitist:cool:

And readers, please note, the model does this without considering the energy content of the oil being produced, anywhere in its equations. Even though the energy used in oil production, refining and distribution comes largely from oil.

This has been pointed out numerous times in the course of this thread and Fute has never addressed the issue. How can he conclude that the energy available from oil is insufficient, when his model does not even consider it? It's utterly idiotic.
 
And readers, please note, the model does this without considering the energy content of the oil being produced, anywhere in its equations. Even though the energy used in oil production, refining and distribution comes largely from oil.

This has been pointed out numerous times in the course of this thread and Fute has never addressed the issue. How can he conclude that the energy available from oil is insufficient, when his model does not even consider it? It's utterly idiotic.
Here is a good explanation of the 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.



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