Reply With Quote
Yes, but we aren't there yet in my opinion.
It boils at -320 F.... freezes at -346 F...
Yes, but still. The cost would be immense. I doubt it would save enough energy waste to make it practical.
Yes, but we aren't there yet in my opinion.
It boils at -320 F.... freezes at -346 F...
Yes, but when.
Do we have a proven limit on these?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/...lines/(page)/2
The idea is to build some interconnections between the three main US Grids. That there would make a LOT of interesting possibilities open up, as the gentleman in the article notes.
I call bull to that. Where in do they get those numbers?
Do you have the faintest understanding of the materials involve, the digging involved, temperature expansion coefficients, etc?
How can the do this for just 30% or more in cost...
No way!
By proven limit, I take it you mean some idea as to what is left?
Yes, we have a fair idea, as I have stated previously. One has to discount "political" reserves in favor of engineering data, but we have enough data to do reasonable best/probable/worst case projections.
Most of those projections say that there are still decades more oil/gas/coal to extract. But the decreasing return on invested energy means that the supply curve for these forms of energy is sliding to the left, even if nominal production remains flat, which is not likely to happen. This is an interesting junction between physics and economics.
Bull .
proven reserves isn't anywhere close to calculating what the unproven reserves are.
Think about it, use a little common sense and logic.
We simply have no clue how much more we have.
I do have an idea as to the practicalities of the technology.
As for bull or not:
No idea. I think he is very likely being a tad over-optimistic though. The added costs would have to be weighed against the benefits of being able to shift electrical production around easily.
Such a shift would allow for the really sunny/windy interior where solar/wind is the most cost compe ive (i.e. cheapest per kWh) to provide a lot of electricity.
The potential profits for companies who get in on the ground level for this are enticing no small amount of capital.
Yes, we do.
Do you understand the concept of return on invested energy? I think I have explained that enough here for you to have seen it.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
One thing not stated in the article is that to minimize the major losses for long distance, you have to use rectifiers to convert to DC, then use inverters to reconvert to AC. You cannot compare long distance costs to conventional power lines. Another expense and maintenance to be factored in. Unless the size of a solar or wind farm is in the gigawatts, the technology simply won't pay off.
OK genius. Tell me what proves how much oil, coal, etc. we don't have.
Rather long article that goes over the strengths and weaknesses of predicting oil/gas supplies:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_fore...herrere505.htm
More data:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/blanchard/
Still more:
http://www.durangobill.com/Rollover.html
Still more:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969
I think we have enough to make some solid decisions.
Read through the above links, if you doubt that. If you can find some data showing we are finding oil faster than we are using it, feel free to post that.
If you can't find that data, and I have quite a bit of data showing we are using/producing it faster than we are finding it, what should we conclude from that WC?
RG, you don't get it. We simply have no idea what the unproven reserves are, and there is no way of accurately predicting things not explored.
You just don't get it.
There is a way of accurately predicting things not explored.
Read the links, or find data that shows we are finding it faster than we are using it.
If the data we do have suggests depletion, and there is no conflicting data, what should we conclude?
Discoveries don't matter. It still doesn't prove what we haven't discovered yet.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969
Much more detail, including economic effects. I think their overall predictions are more dire than is warranted given technological advances, but they draw some fairly reasonable conclusions from oil and economic data.
Oil Production is Reaching its Limit: The Basics of What This Means
Posted by Gail the Actuary on November 16, 2009 - 5:35pm
Topic: Economics/Finance
Tags: oil production, overview, peak oil [list all tags]
I decided to write another rather basic level article because there are so many people I meet who have heard a bit about the oil situation, and it is hard to point to one single article to give an overview of some of the current issues. Regular readers will find many repeats of graphs. There are some new ones, as well, from the Denver ASPO-USA conference. Because there is so much to tell, the story gets a little long.
This, like AGW, is where you want perfect data with everything known before you want to make a decision.
That is not possible, nor is it feasible in all cases.
Real world CEOs and leaders have to make reasonable decisions based on incomplete data.
You did not answer my question, though.
What is reasonable to conclude, based on what data we *do* have, i.e. discoveries have tapered off and are less than annual production?
Let's think about it logically then.
Is the Earth finite?
From an energy standpoint? Not until the sun burns out.
The reasonable assumption is that we cannot know if there is more oil or not. You, however, have a closed mind. You appear not to accept the possibility that the trend may not hold.
Is the earth finite?
Yes.
Since it is finite it can be explored for oil.
If you explore a given geographical area for oil, and find none, you can eliminate that area as not having oil, or at the very least strongly reduce the possibility of a massive unknown reserve.
Once you start eliminating areas, you reduce the area of the earth where reserves are unknown.
As time progresses the area of the earth that has not been explored can ONLY go down, further reducing the area that has unknown reserves.
As time passes and more exploration is done, then you have more and more certainty as to what can be eventually exploited.
The odds that we will find a massive field somewhere are virtually certain. It should surprise no one when that happends.
BUT
Remember, we must find oil faster than it is being depleted AND provide for more growth to maintain steady or increasing production.
The odds of finding massive undiscovered amounts of oil in an ever shinking area goes down, simply because you have less unexplored area.
It pleases you to think that because you disagree with me on many issues.
The trend may not hold, indeed.
What data do you have to support that we will suddenly find vast amounts of new oil?
What is reasonable to conclude, based on what data we *do* have, i.e. discoveries have tapered off and are less than annual production?
I know you well enough to know that you will not answer this question, because the answer fully contradicts your view point.
Who is being closed minded?
Good. just keep that in mind, little is certain.
I don't have such data. I do believe the oil companies know more than they let us know however.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
