How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Warrior1979]

China is now and has always had one MAJOR failing: it is a command economy.

And command economies always fail.

Because the people running things and giving the orders lack innovative skills.

They are unable to actually develop anything innovative on a consistent basis.

People have to get it out of their heads that Mao is no longer running the country. China is basically a one-party, capitalist country. It is true that there is some heavy government involvement in certain sectors, notably currency, but they are doing so for their economic benefit. In contrast, the U.S. has taken a different approach: heavy government involvement in a manner that is destructive to the economy…which is exactly what China is running away from.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

People have to get it out of their heads that Mao is no longer running the country. China is basically a one-party, capitalist country. It is true that there is some heavy government involvement in certain sectors, notably currency, but they are doing so for their economic benefit. In contrast, the U.S. has taken a different approach: heavy government involvement in a manner that is destructive to the economy…which is exactly what China is running away from.

There is NOTHING capitalist about China.

The Peoples Liberation Army runs the “industrial” and “commercial” sectors.

 

[Warrior1979]

There is NOTHING capitalist about China.

The Peoples Liberation Army runs the “industrial” and “commercial” sectors.

Since you’re an expert, tell me what you observed when you there.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Since you’re an expert, tell me what you observed when you there.

It would take too long.

Been at it since 1965.

You would get bored.

But you’re younger.

Buy a ticket and get yourself over there.

 

[Warrior1979]

Buy a ticket and get yourself over there.

I assume you mean get myself over there again.

It’s quite stunning what is going on over there. I imagine it is similar what happened in the U.S. during the industrial ramp up in WWII, and the subsequent housing boom, except on a much larger scale.

The tide started to change during Deng Xiaoping’s reign, and vastly changed with his successors.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Getting back to the idea that there are plenty of natural resources to support a large population of earthlings.

Why is the price of oil so high? Is there a shortage of oil?

Well, I was surfing the net and found this:

According to PetroStrategies, Inc., a 2007 ranking of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, in terms of reserves, placed the largest privately owned company, ExxonMobil, at number 17 with 13,318 million barrels of oil equivalent, far behind number 1 Saudi Arabia Oil, with 303,285 million barrels and, number 2 National Iranian Oil with 300,485 million barrels, etc. No doubt the rankings vary, but these are indicative of the general orders of magnitude.
petrostrategies.org/Links/Worlds_Largest_…

That link doesn’t work.

This one does:

petrostrategies.org/

So, if 95% of the world’s oil is controlled by totalitarian dictatorships whose leadership(s) may be mentally unstable AND who hate the West [aka, Christianity], then we can’t really expect them to do anything that will benefit us.

 

[Warrior1979]

The total amount of oil is not relevant. What is relevant for oil, and any other energy resource, it the net energy yield. The oil that is used is the oil that has a net energy yield; the oil that has a negative energy yield is not.

Technically, it all has a negative yield. We just ignore the amount of energy that went into the creation of oil, which is greater than what is yielded. The starting point for the analysis is the extraction of oil. If we attempt to create this resource, then the negative energy yield becomes very obvious. This was clearly demonstrated several years ago with ethanol production.

 

[GEddie]

The total amount of oil is not relevant. What is relevant for oil, and any other energy resource, it the net energy yield. The oil that is used is the oil that has a net energy yield; the oil that has a negative energy yield is not.

Technically, it all has a negative yield. We just ignore the amount of energy that went into the creation of oil, which is greater than what is yielded. The starting point for the analysis is the extraction of oil. If we attempt to create this resource, then the negative energy yield becomes very obvious. This was clearly demonstrated several years ago with ethanol production.

Ultimately, everything has a negative energy yield: even the sun, even human life itself. The question is whether any given process has a yield greater than the human effort that went into it.

We have more energy available to us as solar thermal energy than we can use. The difficulty lies in capitalizing the means to collect it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The notion that oil has a net negative energy is nonsense.

If it took more energy to use oil than it yields then no one would use it.

The fact that oil is so positive is why so many people use it.

If you want an example of an energy source with net negative energy, I have a candidate:

FIREWOOD.

Without having any actual numbers in front of me: you have to cut down a tree, or go to a fallen tree, and then cut it into manageable lengths. Then you have to dry it somewhat. Then you buck it into shorter lengths and then split it or cut it into burnable rounds. Then you need to carry the firewood from the cutting area to the area immediately adjacent to the wood stove. Then you need to sort the firewood into at least three categories: fire starter, tinder, medium size and large size. Then you need to stack the firewood in the stove and start it burning, which may not be easy every time.

Every half hour you need to add another ten pounds of wood to the fire and poke wood already in the fire box.

You do that with about 150 to 200 pounds of firewood each day.

Every couple of days when the fire burns out, you carefully use a very small shovel to take the ashes and put them into a small steel pail with a tight lid.

Then you take the hot ashes and carry them to another location where you dump them into another larger pail so they can completely cool down to ambient temperature and all the embers are OUT.

Then you dump those in some safe place.

Meanwhile, you may or may not have a choice of the kind of wood you burn, so you have to periodically have to hire a chimney sweep to clean the creosote out of your chimney and you have to make sure that you have a spark arrestor on top of your chimney AND something to make sure rain doesn’t go down the chimney and that squirrels don’t go down the chimney and that very strong winds don’t blow out the fire.

That is a huge amount of energy expended to heat your house.

The only reason anyone would use wood to heat their house would be if they had the wood for free … their building lot had large numbers of downed trees from storms and they had to get rid of the wood somehow and letting it rot may not be a viable option.

OR, if their heating system was not designed properly and in very cold winters was not adequate to heat the house. [For example, some older heat pump systems].

OR, if there was a long term power outage and the basic heating system was not able to work.

BUT, if you can just go to the thermostat and push a button and once every few months, call for a truck to deliver more oil.

Oil is far more efficient than using firewood.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Please keep in mind also, that there are some things we find it essential to use oil for and some uses for which oil is less desireable.

If you want to have a car or an airplane or a ship, then distillates and refined oil is superior to any other energy source.

If you want to heat your house, natural gas may be better … IF there is a gas main near your house. If you want to generate heat for a factory or a manufacturing process, then running a natural gas main might be worth while. If “regular natural gas” just is not feasible, then you may find propane works well. So you buy a really large tank and from time to time a truck delivers propane. OR, depending on availability, you may use some other form of natural gas such as natural gas liquids, or LPG, or LNG or CNG.

Natural gas out of the well may not be directly usable. All natural gas is different … some is wet, some has other things other than methane and those other things need to be separated out … the burners are usually optimized for a specific heat content of natural gas. So the natural gas goes through a process … and that is where we get propane from, by the way.

If you want to generate electricity, then coal works best. Except that France generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear.

If you have easy access to hydro, then perhaps generating electricity by building a dam might be best. Except that transporting electricity very long distances can be costly. And you might need to build excess generating capacity to accommodate peak periods of demand. Unless you can construct some form of energy storage device, such as a pumped storage facility.

If you have easy access to natural gas, then generating electricity with natural gas might be best.

It all depends on the cost of the fuel delivered to the generator or end user.

And the cost can vary depending on how much processing the fuel needs and the distance from the source to the user.

It also depends on the energy density requirements of the user’s requirements.

Coal might not work to power an airplane … BUT in some countries that have a lot of easily accessible coal, it might be cheaper to convert coal to a liquid fuel using the SASOL process.

On the other hand, there are places where oil just bubbles up to the surface and you can scoop it up and use it.

For example, in 1830 Pennsylvania and New York State, oil and natural gas DID actually come to the surface by itself. And pretty soon people not only found a use for it, but developed whole sciences of analysis and innovation for those products for lighting, heat, and lubricating products.

After a while, petroleum put whale oil out of business and it was easier to use oil to replace firewood … gradually. Coal was still preferred for cost until cities decided they wanted to get rid of the coal smoke in the early 1900’s. Electricity was also used in cities to power trains … again to get rid of the coal smoke and that was also around 1910.

Once electric power was developed to a high state, then it was the preferred energy source, EVEN THOUGH the electric generating plant was on the outskirts of the city, AND BURNED COAL, it was still preferred to having thousands of separate coal burning locomotives and kerosene burning lights. Coal was also used to manufacture gas which was piped into almost every home and business and used to burn to provide lighting. In most cities, the older buildings … dating back to the 1920’s … STILL have active gas pipes for lighting, even though the gas lights are no longer used. But periodically, there is a “problem” and the gas company comes because somebody smells gas [which is artificially odorized to make it detectable] and it turns out that the ancient gas pipes for lighting are still there and still charged with gas under pressure and are leaking.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Iceland gets most or all of its electricity from harnessing the heat from geothermal energy … except there is a downside … right now [yet, again] they are having volcanic eruptions and the ash is seriously disrupting their air traffic.

And there isn’t much you can do to “mitigate” a volcano.

Except move away.

But apart from the occasional problems with volcanoes, people tend to like living on Iceland.

Except when lava threatens to wipe out their community.

[Keep in mind that the planet Earth is ONE GIANT volcano that is 3500 miles deep if you consider the radius of the spherical Earth.]

Geothermal is very expensive as an energy source, unless you have so much of it and access is sooo easy and competitive fuels are expensive to import that geothermal is more advantageous.

In some places, they have geothermal and developed it, only to find after a few years, that the energy yield dropped off … they had used up and exhausted their source.

If you live near hot springs or some kind of volcanic vent then the ground and water temperature may be at 212ºF or 100ºC.

Normally, without a neighborhood volcano, the earth below a certain depth maybe below 30 feet or so, is around 55º all the time, so with proper design you can harness that heat/cooling source … but it can be extremely expensive. About $10 per square foot of your house. Whereas a regular furnace and a/c system might only be $4 per square foot. And you need to pump about 10 gallons per minute into and outof and back into the ground. So the pump has to be heavy duty. And that’s just for a smallish house.

And if you can live without a/c, then the cost might only be $2 per square foot for a conventional oil burner or gas furnace.

It is easy to blithely say that one energy source or another is best or worst. But until you look at all the costs for a specific application at a specific location, then you can’t make a valid determination.

So you need to hire an engineer to work out all the math details.

 

[Warrior1979]

Ultimately, everything has a negative energy yield: even the sun, even human life itself. The question is whether any given process has a yield greater than the human effort that went into it.

We have more energy available to us as solar thermal energy than we can use. The difficulty lies in capitalizing the means to collect it.

ICXC NIKA

More correctly, potential energy. If would could turn all mass into energy, we have an unfathomable amount of energy. Well, actually about 700 years worth assuming exponential growth and using every bit of mass existing on this planet (which obviously can’t be done).

 

[Warrior1979]

The notion that oil has a net negative energy is nonsense.

The simple answer to this response is that if the net energy is positive, we don’t have to drill for it, we could simply manufacture it ad infinitum.

We tried that with ethanol, but, as expected, resulted in a net energy loss as well as high food prices (especially corn).

If it took more energy to use oil than it yields then no one would use it.

Once, again, it appears to have a positive yield because we ignore the energy that used naturally to create it. We take the already created oil as the starting point for the analysis. If the energy used to created the oil naturally in the first place, the net energy is negative.

The fact that oil is so positive is why so many people use it.

More correctly, the fact that people use oil obtained from sources that result in net energy gain. Not all sources result in net gain, which is why they are not used. Also, if you research the matter, you will see that the net energy gain has gone down dramatically over time because the sources are more difficult to exploit.

If you want an example of an energy source with net negative energy, I have a candidate:

FIREWOOD.

Nope. Your using the already created tree as the start of your analysis. The tree doesn’t just pop into existence. It uses solar energy and various other resources.

If you can prove otherwise, you have discovered new scientific principles that will make Einstein look like a dummy. Write those principles out, with the appropriate supporting science, and you will win your Nobel Prize and be written in the annals of scientific history.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If oil results in net negative energy, then where does the positive energy come from to make up the net negative?

What YOU are saying, I think, by “net negative energy” is that SOME of the energy from oil is used to bring the oil-based-energy to the end user.

If there was truly net NEGATIVE energy, then there would be no energy left by the time the oil got to the end user.

But that’s not true.

When the oil gets to the final end user, there is PLENTY of energy left … so there can’t be any such thing as net NEGATIVE energy where oil is concerned.

Of course, there is ALWAYS energy used to make energy. Nothing is 100% efficient. Nothing.

But using some of the energy to bring energy to market does not make it NET negative energy.
Solar is probably the worst. Wind is probably second worst.

[And using firewood for heat is probably third worst.]*

 

[Warrior1979]

If oil results in net negative energy, then where does the positive energy come from to make up the net negative?

What YOU are saying, I think, by “net negative energy” is that SOME of the energy from oil is used to bring the oil-based-energy to the end user.

If there was truly net NEGATIVE energy, then there would be no energy left by the time the oil got to the end user.

But that’s not true.

Once again, you are using the starting point of the analysis as already existing oil, and completely ignoring how the oil got there in the first place. The oil was created by various natural events, all of which took energy, at net energy loss. People conveniently forget that and ignore it in the analysis.

When the oil gets to the final end user, there is PLENTY of energy left … so there can’t be any such thing as net NEGATIVE energy where oil is concerned.

There will always be oil, and the end user will be able to use it. If the end user burns a gallon of gas he’ll see 31,500 calories. What he won’t see is the even greater amount of energy that was used to create it.

I’ve been in the “energy business” for half a century and have never heard of “net negative energy” … at least the way you are using it. WHERE did you hear of that?

I majored in physics. What I’m discussing is basic thermodynamic principles that have been formalized for about 160 years.

Solar is probably the worst. Wind is probably second worst.

[And using firewood for heat is probably third worst.]

It actually isn’t any “worse.” You’re just comparing it to a more dense energy source which was created using an even greater amount of energy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Once again, you are using the starting point of the analysis as already existing oil, and completely ignoring how the oil got there in the first place. The oil was created by various natural events, all of which took energy, at net energy loss. People conveniently forget that and ignore it in the analysis.

There will always be oil, and the end user will be able to use it. If the end user burns a gallon of gas he’ll see 31,500 calories. What he won’t see is the even greater amount of energy that was used to create it.

I majored in physics. What I’m discussing is basic thermodynamic principles that have been formalized for about 160 years.

It actually isn’t any “worse.” You’re just comparing it to a more dense energy source which was created using an even greater amount of energy.

Well, I’m always interested in learning something new.

What is negative energy?
What is negative energy as in terms of physics and warp theory?

Negative energy can refer to several concepts:

• Negative rest energy, which corresponds to negative mass, which has many unusual physical consequences.
• Energy in any system below the conventionally-defined ground state. Examples are positrons under the dirac sea model of electron behavior, and the region of reduced vacuum energy associated with the Casimir effect. This type of effect typically occurs under exotic or unexpected conditions, as the definition of the ground state is usually chosen because it is the state of lowest expected energy within a system.
• Energy in any system below an arbitrarily defined zero level. Examples include electron potential energy within an atom under the Bohr model of atomic structure, and gravitational potential energy in Newton’s model of gravity.

There are particles that are negative equivalents to the particles common in our universe. The positron for the electron, the negatron for the proton, some processes create them as a consequence but since the universe teems with their opposites they are annihilated immediately. They are formed in pairs with their opposites. In places like black holes the forces at work can separate the pairs and keep them from annihilating. These negative particles fall into black holes, reducing their mass over eons. Powerful magnetic fields can also separate the particles and may eventually suspend them in quantities sufficient to make measurable amounts of anti matter, by pairing a positron with an negatron.
.
Vacuum! Like when someone is complaining about everything and anything: IF you hang with them enough, they can SUCK the energy right from ya.

It’s the force that keeps me pinned to the couch from 8:00 am Saturday morning to 11:00 pm Sunday night.

In terms of Physics and Warp theory. I’m not sure about Physics, but I know that Warp was that Klingon dude in Star Trek next generation…

So, there you have it:

Net Negative Energy is Klingon!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Say, … will you be at Dragon-Con this year? Which costume panels will you be attending?

 

[Warrior1979]

Well, I’m always interested in learning something new.

What is negative energy?
What is negative energy as in terms of physics and warp theory?

Not negative energy…net energy yield that is negative. Two totally different concepts. If you look at one small segment of the process it may appear positive, but if you look at the big picture it is always negative.

Say, … will you be at Dragon-Con this year? Which costume panels will you be attending?

Not my thing, but I do know someone that makes his own costumes and goes to those events.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Got to thinking again about Qo’noS-ian physics and how it differs from physics on the planet Earth.

On Earth, what you do is compute the DIFFERENCE in energy between the state you find “it” [the energy source] and the final state after you use it.

If the difference is positive, then most likely you move ahead and use it. Like oil and natural gas, coal and hydro, and nuclear.

If you live a hundred miles off the grid, then maybe solar and wind. Maybe.

If you live a hundred miles off the grid, AND there are a lot of trees around you, then maybe firewood.

If the difference is negative, then you don’t.

So far, people have preferred coal, by far.

Then whale oil, by far.

Then gas manufactured from coal, by far.

Then some guy found petroleum bubbling up from the surface and found it would catch fire. That was around 1830 in New York State.

But that’s merely the mythology. Native Americans knew about it from “the beginning”; it wasn’t until 1627 that the White Man learned about it.

esogis.nysm.nysed.gov/esogisdata/downloads/talks/Oil_and_Gas_Plays.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry_in_the_United_States

Shortly thereafter, they found petroleum and methane gas [aka, swamp gas] in Pennsylvania. The kids used to set the methane on fire. Great fun.

Eventually the adults decided they could make some money by selling it.

Then some chemists found they could heat it and remove different components from it and sell the stuff separately.

Thus the Oil & Gas industry was formed.

No net negative energy, by the way.

Might be different on Planet Qo’noS.

 

[GEddie]

Thus the Oil & Gas industry was formed.

No net negative energy, by the way.

Might be different on Planet Qo’noS.

The difference is not of planets but of time frames.

Yes, oil as we now find it in the earth is a net (positive) energy source. We would not drill it if that were not the case. The earth’s crust is riddled with dead oil wells where the value of oil remaining is less than the cost to pump it.

But that net energy is the result of a millennial process of biological growth, fuelled by millenniums of sunlight, and catalyzed by further millenniums of underground pressure. The total energy received from the sun, wind, etc, in growing the plant life and then entombing the remnants so that oil formation could proceed, is far greater than the energy that was finally stored as fossil fuel.

Now that natural energy is of no consequence to the oil economy, because it required no human effort. In fact, it occurred when there was no human life anyhow.

But if we as humans are to maintain the energy culture we have now once the oil is gone, we will need to replace it somehow. Photoelectric and solar thermal, windmills, etc, can do a large part of it. But for transportation technology (especially trucks, ships and aircraft) there is no substitute for liquid fuel.

And then, the net energy decrease in creating the liquid fuels will be an issue. Corn ethanol just won’t cut it, however dear it may be to political leaders in our central states.

God Bless and ICXC NiKA.