If "Everyone knows" something it must be true. Right? 7

[zdas04]

Since the 1960's one of the most precious theories in the world has been Peak Oil. From the first time I heard it in 1980 I have seen it drive investment decisions in sometimes inexplicable directions. When oil prices (and production) tanked in 1986 a lot of talking heads claimed that it was because of "Peak Oil" and prices were sure to rebound quickly because of supply and demand--prices stayed low for 15 years. The hypothesis of peak oil was promulgated in 1956 by M King Hubbert. It came with a Hubbert Curve and dire predictions of the world freezing in the dark. The Curve through 2010 looked like a pretty good fit for the data (with a peak in about 1975 and a secondary peak in 1986 caused by a run-up in prices).

In 2005, U.S. imports of oil were 70% of energy consumption and the Peak Oil guys were getting kind of smug. In the third 2012 Presidential Debate the sitting President said that "We are currently importing 20% of our energy demand". I hadn't looked at the numbers in several years, but that sounded wrong so I looked and his numbers were good. Demand is down slightly, but U.S. production of hydrcarbons is currently higher than the 1975 peak (crude is still only 2/3 of 1975 but it is increasing fast, natural gas is a bigger portion of the energy mix than it was in 1975 so the energy mix is 80% domestic).

Current estimates are that the new Shale Oil sources will make the U.S. a net exporter again by 2017. The Shale Oil resources are expected to increase Proved Developed Reserves in the U.S. from a current 20 billion barrels to something approaching 100 billion barrels in the next 5 years. These resources are far from unique in the world and similar shale plays in 20 countries currently do not have any significant development activity. We are not running out of oil any time soon.

Peak oil is pretty much considered a failed hypotheses after 50 years of guiding a progression of seriously stupid decisions. "Everybody" bought into it and "everybody" knows that increasing demand in an declining supply simply has to result in increasing prices. It is a model that is incredibly easy to internalize and you can even explain it to your Grandmother. It just isn't an accurate representation of a global phenomenon no matter how much we want to reduce a complex concept to a sound byte.

Hopefully it will not take 50 more years to put that other hypotheses that "everybody believes" and is "easy to internalize and can even be explained to one's grandmother" to rest. "Peak Oil" let the industry to carry too much debt and led to thousands of companies going under. "Anthropocentric Global Warming" is leading regulators down similar silly paths, but with much higher stakes.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[NorthCivil]

Although some of your points are valid, there are limits.

Yes, we have developed technology to unlock previously inaccessable resources, such as the tar sands in Alberta and the Shale in the American Rockies.

However, Oil is a finite resource, of which we are consuming quite quickly. Rising economies around the world mean that the rate of consumption is far from peaking. At our current rate of production here in Canada, Alberta is set to be almost fully exploited by 2065.

I would argue we are close to peak oil at the moment, as the cost of oil is beginning to make sustainables cost-competative. As our oil resource becomes more scarce, the cost will go up, and alternative energy will become the norm.

Whether that is 30 years away or 150, that is definately where we are headed.

I personally believe that if we don't succesfully switch to alternatives before the oil runs out, it will be the biggest fall of civilization in the history of mankind. A much darker version of the dark ages if you will. How will 7 billion people survive without all the transportation and infrastructure benefits, afforded almost solely by oil consuming machinery? And how many of us could really return to a more primal way of survival...

 

[patprimmer]

Strictly on your heading and not buying into the peak oil issue, "wrong"

Many popular held beliefs turn out to be wrong. If it's natural it must be good for you springs to mind.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[hokie66]

We all, even those of us who take time to study the issues and acquire the "knowledge", pick and choose our "beliefs". For example, Mr Hubbert believed that uranium is the future of electricity generation, and I believe he is correct.

 

[zdas04]

I've got no problem with uranium as a fuel (not sure how it becomes an effective transportation fuel, but that is another discussion), but isn't it pretty finite? I would put my money on some smart lad working out the difficulties of fusion in the next couple of hundred years and making uranium as obsolete a fuel source as whale blubber.

The price trend on oil is down and I expect it to stay in that direction till it reaches some value around $50-60 USD/bbl. Historically world natural gas price per unit of energy has been around 1/6th to 1/10th the cost of crude. Right now it is 1/20th in the U.S. because of the glut of natural gas from Shale and the total lack of export or conversion facilities (LNG or Gas to Liquids). In Europe natural gas price is around 1/7th and in Asia it is around 1/3. That price disparity will change with the huge export capability currently under construction in Queensland and Louisiana and with $60/bbl crude and $6-10/MCF gas the balance will be restored and pressure on prices will ease.

Natural gas is renewable in fact. When prices were above $10/MCF many communities had land-fill gas projects on the drawing board and many are currently on line--the world wastes a lot of organic material that generates methane which can be captured and further converted to liquids. Japan is currently doing some amazing research into harvesting hydrates from the sea floor (which are formed as organic material rots in a high pressure environment and more are being created at a pretty rapid rate). A hydrocarbon fuel economy is absolutely sustainable forever.

Peak oil is the worst kind of "wishful thinking" ("wishful" in the sense that people really want to believe that natural phenomena can be reduced to sound bytes that can fit into a sensational headline). Robert Heinlein said "if it can't be expressed mathematically then it is propaganda, not science". We get a lot of propaganda. I tend to agree with Michael Crichton who said that the current plethora of frightening hypotheses from AGW to Peak Oil to species extinction are a modern day replacement for the Cold War which kept a couple of generations terrified that the world might end at any time. I think it is an appropriate role of Engineers to debunk that garbage instead of foster it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[SNORGY]

I took a pick-up truck load of garbage to the landfill the other day. (We live on an acreage without regular garbage removal service.)

As I watched the bazillion gulls and crows swarm the several dozers and earth-movers that were pushing multiple hundreds of tons of trash around, I couldn't help but reflect on the preliminary studies done by the company I work for that point towards the marginal economics on a commercial scale for biofuels (syngas, bio oil, bio char). In fact, the economics and viability of such ventures would be worse in more rural settings due to the limited availability of feedstock. One could argue that, for electricity at least, outlying areas could be "put on the grid" as they generally are today.

"Status quo" is short term, low risk, and cheap. So, we perpetuate a society that drills holes in the ground and thrives off of what comes out, and we build a self-perpetuating economic system around it, carefully setting prices that ensure that the rich stay rich and that other ideas stay non-viable. Perhaps the visionaries need to step forward and *impose* a system of economics that *forces* the viability of biofuels. In other words, perhaps the leaders (or people in power) need to simply *decree* the value of energy produced by the processing of garbage.

Maybe within my lifetime the garbage that we throw away and bury will become our most valuable resource.

Meanwhile, I guess we just keep poking holes in the ground.

 

[TheTick]

Everyone "knows" there is a little "hang time" when an object is released in air before it begins to drop. There was a discussion on ET about this a few years ago. Shocking to see how many allegedly educated and trained engineering professionals "know" this. Too many Road Runner cartoons.

 

[zdas04]

Far too many Road Runner cartoons. LOL.

SNORGY,
The government ignoring short term economics in favor of the "common good" has worked out really well so far. I can think of a few places where it worked (the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Interstate Highway System, a few others), but I cannot think of a single time that the government ignoring economic fundamentals has worked at all. Oil for Food is the one that jumps out to me as a disaster.

Several European countries have implemented energy policy by imposing very high taxes on motor fuel that have led in some really good directions (smaller cars, better public transportation, more car pools and bicycles), but many say that these inflated energy prices have been responsible for economic growth being slower than population growth (others say that the VAT accomplished the slow down all by itself, I don't know if either is "right" or "wrong"). Do you really think that our gridlocked government would ever have the fortitude to impose new taxes on motor fuels to increase the price from $3-4/gallon to $8-10/gallon? That is what it would take over a couple of decades to cause a significant reduction of the fuel use/per capita in LA or Houston. We have built the U.S. infrastructure around cheep fuel. Homes are too far from workplaces, shopping and schools are too far from homes. Fixing that (either through changing the residence model or building public transportation) takes decades. Our government reflects the citizen's demand for instant gratification. Good luck with your biofuels initiative.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[SNORGY]

My point (if there is one) is that, to a considerable degree, we (society / government) arbitrarily decide what is valuable and what is cheap. Centuries ago, somebody decided that gold was valuable; apart from making useless trinkets, gold had no value at all. It has some practical use now (other than for pure ornamentation), but it was not always so.

What prevents us from now arbitrarily deciding that garbage as a feedstock for biofuels is now valuable? It is, as you state, the economics and infrastructures that we have created in the interim.

I suspect what would take the longest time towards the shift in mindset (particularly in a democratic society) is educating the masses that the greater good is, indeed greater. Too much money at stake, too much inertia to move. As you point out, not much chance it would come to fruition. Hence the envisioning of the bleak doomsday scenario alluded to by NorthCivil.

Thanks for the wishes for good luck, but actually, the "biofuels initiative" wasn't my own.

I *am* contemplating the pioneering of some independent research on methane recapture schemes made possible by adding supplements to livestock feed with a view towards increasing the incidence of bovine flatulence.

But that's another post altogether, I suspect.

 

[Maui]

Tick, I remember that thread. When I read the proponents' arguments in favor of Wiley E. Coyote physics, it had me laughing almost as hard as "The Big Bang Theory" does when they argue about established theories. One of the things I find funny about "The Big Bang Theory" is that the vast majority of the physics they talk about on the show is actually correct, but the average person probably has no way of knowing that. It's one of my favorite television shows.

Regarding David's point, something is almost always lost in translation when you have to "dumb down" a theory in order to explain it to someone else so that they can understand it.


Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[HornTootinEE]

The Big Bang Theory = best television show in a LONG time

 

[JohnRBaker]

I suspect what would take the longest time towards the shift in mindset (particularly in a democratic society) is educating the masses that the greater good is, indeed greater.

And how long before the Right-Wingers go complete apoplectic accusing intellectuals of brainwashing America's youth into believing liberal propaganda? Heck, in some states they've already tried removing scientific discourse from the public school system...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://voices.yahoo.com/texas-gop-says-no-critical-thinking-school-11515004.html

http://thediplomat.com/the-editor/2012/07/12/texas-to-ban-critical-thinking-skills/

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[SNORGY]

Maui:

The last time I used the term "dumb down", I was encouraged to consider the use of any of several alternative euphemisms.

JohnRBaker:

Provocative articles. Myself, I do encourage critical thinking; but my approach is, if the people doing the thinking are stupid, I become critical. On the topic of Creationism versus Evolution, and strength and weakness, I choose to reconcile the argument thus:

If God is infinite, and timeless, then we can remove "time" from consideration in the argument. Then, in Scripture, there is an abundance of record of "what" God created, but not a lot about the "How" He did it. Evolution can be thought of as the mechanism behind the "How" part, once the concept of time is deemed irrelevant. Indeed, some might suggest that the concept of time had to be created in order for God to be able to "dumb things down" so that the scientists among us could begin to understand the "How". So, while the Creationists and the Evolutionists continue the timeless debate and perpetuate the belief that the two theories are mutually exclusive, I blissfully and ignorantly choose to accept that they coexist as, essentially, one and the same thing.

I have had discussions of this nature with people who are more religious than I am, and while I believe it to be critical thinking, they are just plain critical.

 

[rb1957]

"The last time I used the term "dumb down", I was encouraged to consider the use of any of several alternative euphemisms." ...

with all due respect (ie none), let me explain this in simple terms ...

no? ok, let's try simpler terms ...

 

[moltenmetal]

David: I'd add to that list of truisms the chestnut that you seem to cling to: that nature is so huge that nothing humans do can ever have a negative effect on it.

As I've said repeatedly here, we will run out of planetary carrying capacity for the effluent long before we run out of fossil carbon. The Malthusian/Hubbertesque predictions of us all freezing in the dark are rubbish. So are the predictions that we've evolved to be cooperative enough on a global scale to do anything meaningful about restricting the atmospheric dumping of CO2, even though the people who are qualified enough to be considered knowledgeable on the subject are in broad agreement about the necessity to do so.

As to the energy content of garbage, we'd be better off making less of it. Merely because we make more of it all the time doesn't make it renewable. For what's left, there's far more energy benefit in recycling the portions of it that we can to offset the production of those goods from raw materials, than in burning or gasifying it or digesting it anaerobically to make methane (and an equimolar amount of CO2). Source separation allows us to make the highest value uses for the separated streams, while also mitigating the environmental impact of putting them to use. At least in the case of garbage, there's a tipping charge to offset the cost of recycling. Not so with atmospheric CO2 emissions.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Actively making more waste so we can use it to feed the machine that makes the waste? Sounds like something those bankers get up to.

- Steve

 

[drawoh]

zdas04,

Oil is a finite resource. Demand is going up. Prices are going up and making less economical processes feasible. We will run out eventually. Unless another, preferably renewable fuel source is found, our transportation especially, will be affected.

Some articles on Peak Oil seems to imply that there will be a large "Poof!" after which, society as we know it, will collapse. The S will hit the F. All the women will be gang raped within seconds. All those guys hidden in camouflaged forest bunkers will nod to each other in satisfaction. The Toronto Maple Leafs will win the Stanley Cup.

I don't believe in any of that.

--
JHG

 

[zdas04]

molenmetal,
Once again you are attributing things to me that I just never said. I couldn't agree more that source separation of waste streams; reducing consumption; reusing stuff; recycling are all reasonable things to do. In my house, we haven't brought a plastic bag home from the grocery store in several years. It just makes sense to take our own reusable bags to the store. But at the end of the day animals of all stripes are going to defecate. Lawns are going to be mowed (or grow long and die in winter, same outcome). Trees are going to lose their leaves. There is going to be kitchen waste. None of that is going to stop. All of these waste streams are going to decompose and the products of decomposition (i.e., methane, CO2, and sterilized solids) can either be discarded or captured. Civilization such as it is will eventually find that the economics of capturing these inevitable waste streams make sense and their processing and use will finally become a significant value-generating activity. Today is is a lot less expensive to harvest the biological wastes of geologic time than of last month, that economic condition will not last forever. On a global scale over geologic time the process is absolutely a closed system, local excesses and local shortages are also inevitable and necessarily short lived.

I do content that while man has a huge impact on micro-systems, the global impact is insignificant. Yeah, the air in the LA basin has been bad enough to pose a health risk to organisms that choose to live in it, and that remediation activities have had an impact on reversing the problem, but as near as Needles, CA the air is as clean as it was when I was a kid. The river (whose name I can't spell and won't try) in the Eastern U.S. that caught fire in the 60's was an example of a local excess that had a definite impact on the environment, but the ocean didn't catch fire and the next river over was just fine. For the most part, irresponsible human activities have had the effect of "crapping in our own nest", but it doesn't do a lot of harm to the tree the nest sits in, nor the lake in the next county.

People simply have an inflated notion of their own importance to the eco-system. We could probably destroy everything we find dear about the earth, but whatever organisms that followed us to the top of the food chain in 10,000 years would have no idea that we were even here. In geologic time the place I live today has been under water at least 5 times, it is currently 5,300 feet above sea level. I am confident that it will be under water again sometime in the future. Probably many times before the sun dies and the destabilizing impact of added energy stops. The system of negative feedback is just too strong to bust (over geologic time). If human activities are hastening warming/cooling cycles (which is not impossible, but I doubt) then so what? Without the hyperbole what difference does it make. If New Orleans, Amsterdam, or Venice become untenable because of the change in sea level in 20 years instead of 90 years how can that possibly matter? If we have a severe cooling period and Canada's growing period goes to zero in 20 years instead of 2000 years what does it matter? If it happens in 2000 years, it will be a surprise to our decedents and they will cope or die.

You talk about Malthus. Malthus only theorized about equilibrium conditions. You get too many of an organism for the local eco-system then something will change. Organisms will die. Organisms will move to adjacent eco-systems (often violently displacing the organisms that were there "first"). Organisms will work out ways to increase the resources within the eco-system. Some combination of all three of those possible outcomes is what Malthus predicted would happen, and it is what has happened over and over. Think of the Potato Famine in Ireland. Many people died. Many people left the country (to the huge benefit of the U.S. and other countries). Many of those that left sent resources back to the remaining population (influx of energy) to keep most of them alive. If you draw the eoo-system boundary around the island of Ireland then, yep the population dramatically decreased. If you draw the eco-system boundary around the globe and the disruption was more of a migration than an upset.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[zdas04]

drawoh,
Sorry, I spent so long writing the last post that we cross posted.

Oil (and natural gas) are simply waste products that have been able to accumulate over geologic time. Nothing magical. Nothing irreplaceable. The only reason that there is so much of it is that it has had a while to accumulate. Replacing the chemical feed stocks that are currently derived from "fossil fuels" with processed wastes is just an Engineering problem (and not a very big one at that, no breakthroughs in mans knowledge are required).

If prices go up too much, demand will go down. 150 years ago society didn't need any Oil at all. Now we are addicted to the stuff, and have the highest standard of living that human kind have ever known (measured on the number of hours of effort required to provide and prepare food, fuel, clothing, and shelter). When my grandmother was a child her family of 10 spent 112 effort hours per day (47% of their available time on average) meeting substance needs. My family of two spends about 15% of our lives providing substance needs after taxes. That is some improvement in two generations. If energy costs double, my subsistence load will probably go to 25% or so, still trivial by the standards of my grandmother.

The whole discussion of energy prices comes down to how much time is available in our lives to watch the Maple Leafs get their butts kicked.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[TenPenny]

I have often thought that in future our landfills will become valuable resource deposits, with all those metals and plastics buried there.