The Population Bomb.

[Monte_RCMS]

That’s like saying the whole concept of addition or subtraction is invalid. EROEI is simply “energy returned on energy invested.” It’s basic economics. If you invest a dollar and are guaranteed to get back two dollars you invest; if you are guaranteed to only get back half of your investment you don’t invest.

You are conflating basic economic concepts with various theories based upon them, hence the reason you are not making any sense.

In order to do a basic economic analysis, you need a unit of measure that is fungible.

A dollar or a Swiss franc or any accepted international currency unit is fungible.

A dollar in Manhattan is the same dollar in Alberta.

You can instantly transport dollars by internet to Texas or London or Tokyo.

However, a thousand BTU’s of natural gas in Texas does not have the same value as a thousand BTU’s of natural gas in Alberta or a thousand BTU’s of natural gas in Tokyo or in London.

So, if you have natural gas in Alberta, you can’t do much with it. Essentially worthless. There are very limited ways of getting it to market. BUT, however, if you have some thick oil in Alberta, you can heat it with that worthless natural gas and make it flow through a pipeline or into a railroad tank car.

You can convert some natural gas to dollars … $3 or so in Texas; $4 or so in Pennsylvania; $10 or more in New York City; $12 or more in London; $16 or so in Tokyo.

Same applies to oil; different chemical compositions.

Same applies to electricity … having a KWH at Hoover Dam is not the same as a KWH in in Kansas … if you have a KWH in Las Vegas and want to transfer it to Kansas, you will have extreme difficulty because of the cost/losses in transmission.

If someone offers to pay me in dollars that is fine; but if they offer to pay me in natural gas in North Dakota, what good does that do me because there is no way for me to exchange North Dakota natural gas for any useful service or product.

A BTU in Alberta is not the same as a BTU in Libya

Energy is just not fungible. Dollars are fungible.

Sorry, but others have already demonstrated that EROEI is not a feasible way of evaluating economic concepts.

Two examples:

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/11/05/peak-oil-and-eroei-still-nonsense/

And as previously posted:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

 

[GregBussey]

This goes for people supporting both sides. However, what disturbs me personally, is when people simply blow off facts that are presented before them.

Like the fact that starvation decreases as population increases?

I suppose you use this paper for all your support for Catholicism also.

You’re not blowing off the facts presented therein are you?

Interesting you pick a country with a with a surplus, notably a country that could be self sufficient with regard to resources, and one that has a high ratio of various naturally occurring resources per person. Also, you choose the country with what has the de facto world currency and prints money out of thin air. Why are you choosing the exception rather than the rule? Why not choose a resource rich country with a much higher population, say, China or India, and use them as an example?

You seem to be suggesting that there is no such thing as transportation and each country is entirely isolated from all others. The fact is that food and resources can be moved from one place to another. Technology, freedom and hope can be expanded from one place to another. Therefore it is specious to argue that any particular country must limit its population to the resources they have and the level of food production sophistocation they themselves have attained. No, in fact we can share and we can teach. That is proven by the fact that worldwide starvation decreases as worldwide population increases.

After all, countries such as the U.S. and Australia will eventually become like them as their populations increase to those levels.

That is a projection not a fact. To believe that projection, one has to blow off the many facts that have been presented in this thread.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

In order to do a basic economic analysis, you need a unit of measure that is fungible.

You’re imposing a condition on the problem that does not exist in reality. FWIW, what you’re doing is western thinking in a nutshell.

Fact is, the real world does not work like that. The simple example, an utter necessary for the technological advances that have occurred over the past several decades, and which allows you to post on this very board, is quantum physics. It’s even far more obscure than what you are talking about, because in its theory it is a given that things are an unknown, and will remain unknown.

EROEI simply works on averages, and those averages are going down, as predicted decades ago. Once you use more energy than you obtain, it is no longer worth it to use that energy source. Simple common sense.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Like the fact that starvation decreases as population increases?

Modern population levels are sustainable only by intense use of resources.As long as energy resources (which are currently non-renewable fossil fuels) continually increase, then it is sustainable.

You’re not blowing off the facts presented therein are you?

Why should I believe fossil fuels resources, being used up faster than they are created, are an unlimited source?

You seem to be suggesting that there is no such thing as transportation and each country is entirely isolated from all others. The fact is that food and resources can be moved from one place to another. Technology, freedom and hope can be expanded from one place to another. Therefore it is specious to argue that any particular country must limit its population to the resources they have and the level of food production sophistocation they themselves have attained. No, in fact we can share and we can teach. That is proven by the fact that worldwide starvation decreases as worldwide population increases.

I recognize that modern transportation uses fossil fuel resources. More notably, I recognize that food production at a level necessary to sustain current population levels are heavily dependent on fossil fuel resources. If those fossil fuel resources disappear, then the food production level will decrease accordingly.

That is a projection not a fact. To believe that projection, one has to blow off the many facts that have been presented in this thread.

What I have stated are facts; research them for yourself. The “projection” comes in when predicting what will happen in the future. Your predictions are based on the assumption that fossil fuel resources are unlimited; my predictions are not.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What is “intense” versus “non-intense” use of natural resources? [Is it nuclear energy versus subsistence gardening and campfires??]

If “fossil fuels” are being used up faster than they are created, then how do we account for the existence of oil that is older than fossil fuels? [Hint: there is oil and natural as that are continuously created in an abiogenic process. Inquiring minds can look this up … abiogenic Thomas Gold R-U Theory ]

Google search this: abiogenic Thomas Gold R-U Theory

Also use other search engines as well.

We have barely begun to develop methane resources … and the conversion of various resources into methanol is, at best, in its infancy.

There is just so much we simply do not know about the Earth and the cosmic environment which bathes the Earth in all kinds of energy sources and streams.

For example, the best of the scientists know that we cannot account for 80% of the mass that is outside of the Earth … they call it “Dark Matter” … they have absolutely no clue as to what it is.

Energy takes many forms and if we can tap into them, we can generate useful and usable energy until our sun goes dark or until the earth’s core drops to room temperature.

There are many forms of nuclear energy … one example: harnessing thorium … almost only one country is pursuing thorium energy: India.

It may actually be possible to build a warp drive. Fanciful? Maybe not.

These issues are far more than merely making existing technology better.

These fundamentally alter the way we think about matter and energy.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’ve read extensively about the abiogenic oil. Conclusion: fringe theory, at best, whose evidence can be readily explained by other events.

I strongly suggest reviewing the evidence and drawing a conclusion based on the evidence, not the other way around.

We have barely begun to develop methane resources … and the conversion of various resources into methanol is, at best, in its infancy.

There’s a reason for this, and it relates to EROEI. As long as fossil fuel has higher EROEI, they will not be developed to any major extent.

It may actually be possible to build a warp drive. Fanciful? Maybe not.

Warp drive…no. Unless our understanding of science and our observations of reality are entirely wrong. The speed of light is a given physical limit for particles with mass. Furthermore, theologically, it creates major problems since faster than light travel means time travel. Imagine people going back in time to change major Biblical events?

It might be possible to give the appearance of faster of than light travel by use of, say, wormholes. But we really don’t know at this point. It might simply be a case it might be possible because we’re not certain that it isn’t impossible.

These fundamentally alter the way we think about matter and energy.

The basic rules which govern matter and energy really haven’t changed much in the past century. What has changed is how we operate within these rules. For example, energy use is governed by the Thermodynamic Laws. There is no technological workaround for them; e.g., you’ll also have waste when you use energy, you’ll never get more energy out of a system than you put in, etc.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We do not now know everything.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

We do not now know everything.

I certainly recognize that.

But if you follow the history of science, there are trends that become obvious. Advancements build on past theories; they refine them; they do not do away with them. Well known example: Einstein’s theories did not do away with Newton’s; they built on them. Einstein’s relativistic theories are simply and expansion of Newton’s theories (or conversely Einstein’s equations collapse to Newton’s equations), and Newton’s theories still remain true except at the extremes that we don’t typically witness in everyday life.

Law pertaining to energy, such as Thermodynamic Laws, certainly may be refined in the future. What is unlikely to happen is that they are found to be entirely wrong. That is an extreme rarity in science. That typically only happens in the purely theoretically realm, which is not what we are dealing with.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Modern population levels are sustainable only by intense use of resources.

When were population levels NOT sustainable only be intense use of resources?

From the stone age man who labored to sharpen flints then walk for miles and miles to maybe find a rabbit to sustain his family with, to the Cheyenne woman who worked day and night to dry meat and process skins before they rotted, to the 19th century farmer who worked himself and his mules into a lather daily to bring in miniscule crops by today’s standards, when were resources NOT used intensely to sustain populations?

Energy of one kind is a substitute for energy of another kind. Horses replaced human leg power. Internal combustion engines replaced horse power. We don’t know what, eventually, may replace fossil fuel energy. We don’t even know when. We thought we hit “peak oil” in the 1970s, and the president of the United States sat in the White House with an ugly sweater on and the thermostat turned down to 65 degrees, and told us so.

But he was wrong because he assumed all developments that could be made had been made. People do the same now in various ways because they can;t foretell the future any better than Carter could.

I’ll admit I never even saw computerized telephones that would also take pictures and tell you what the stock market is doing coming. And I have no reason to believe the doomsayers of today are any more prescient about the future than I was.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

abiogenic oil read

alfin2300.blogspot.com/search?q=abiogenic

 

[Monte_RCMS]

peak oil is bogus:

alfin2300.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/maugeri-global-crude-production.html

global-crude-production

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

peak oil is bogus:

alfin2300.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/maugeri-global-crude-production.html

Your conclusion is wrong if you are basing it on that opinion piece. There is nothing in that opinion piece that supports the idea that peak oil is wrong, and in fact the third bulleted pointed states exactly what is predicted by peak oil theory.

Except for that bulleted point, the opinion piece is void of the discussion of the cost of obtaining the oil. Why? Once again, if it costs more to obtain the energy that one gets back, it effectively ceases to be used as an energy source. I keep hammering this point home because the costs of obtaining these energy sources overall relative to energy returned keeps increasing over time.

Try again.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

abiogenic oil read

alfin2300.blogspot.com/search?q=abiogenic

Note:

Biogenic oil is a renewable resource, but it is renewable on a different time scale than humans generally use.

Now who in this thread has made the point of using fossil reserves faster than they can be created? I can refresh your memory if desired.

Ultimately mankind will reduce their energy usage to the naturally sustainable level, another point which I keep driving home.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Note:

Ultimately mankind will reduce their energy usage to the naturally sustainable level, another point which I keep driving home.

Except, of course, that we really don’t know what the future naturally sustainable level of energy usage will be. In 1880, it was the number of horses the agriculture of the time could support. In the pre-Columbian prairies of the U.S. it was the number of dogs one could feed and the length and strength of shanks’ mare. By the time presently known fossil fuels run out, and assuming there are no new discoveries to extend that time, we have no present idea what energy sources mankind will use. Might come as a surprise as big as utilization of the “waste product” gasoline did.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Note:

Now who in this thread has made the point of using fossil reserves faster than they can be created? I can refresh your memory if desired.

Ultimately mankind will reduce their energy usage to the naturally sustainable level, another point which I keep driving home.

The development of methanol promises to be very useful from now on out into the future.

 

[GregBussey]

Modern population levels are sustainable only by intense use of resources.As long as energy resources (which are currently non-renewable fossil fuels) continually increase, then it is sustainable.

Why should I believe fossil fuels resources, being used up faster than they are created, are an unlimited source?

I recognize that modern transportation uses fossil fuel resources. More notably, I recognize that food production at a level necessary to sustain current population levels are heavily dependent on fossil fuel resources. If those fossil fuel resources disappear, then the food production level will decrease accordingly.

What I have stated are facts; research them for yourself. The “projection” comes in when predicting what will happen in the future. Your predictions are based on the assumption that fossil fuel resources are unlimited; my predictions are not.

So in a nutshell, your position is based on the assumptions that fossil fuels aren’t renewing as fast as we use them, and there will never be any innovation in food production or transportation that utilizes any of the other forms of energy discussed in this thread, nor any energy yet to be discovered, and that fossil fuel energy can never be used more efficiently than it is today, and that God will not provide what we need. So therefore we must disobey God’s order to be fruitful and multiply? Am I hearing you correctly?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Except, of course, that we really don’t know what the future naturally sustainable level of energy usage will be. In 1880, it was the number of horses the agriculture of the time could support. In the pre-Columbian prairies of the U.S. it was the number of dogs one could feed and the length and strength of shanks’ mare.

These are renewable resources. Current population levels are solely dependent nonrenewable resources (or, more properly, energy sources that take millions of years to be created).

By the time presently known fossil fuels run out, and assuming there are no new discoveries to extend that time, we have no present idea what energy sources mankind will use. Might come as a surprise as big as utilization of the “waste product” gasoline did.

It’s true we don’t know what the future holds, but it is reasonable to assume it won’t include fossil fuels. It is also reasonable to assume it will be a renewable source, which is problematic since renewable sources are no substitute for fossil fuels.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The development of methanol promises to be very useful from now on out into the future.

Renewable resources are not a substitute for the fossil fuels. There is a much lower return on energy invested. Do you research.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

So in a nutshell, your position is based on the assumptions that fossil fuels aren’t renewing as fast as we use them,

It’s not only my opinion, but it is the opinion of experts on both sides of this position. That was even noted (implicitly) in the ant-peak oil opinion piece a few posts back. The reasoning is different; e.g., “cheap energy is probably gone,” but the underlying issue is the same, i.e., lower EROEI.

and there will never be any innovation in food production or transportation that utilizes any of the other forms of energy discussed in this thread, nor any energy yet to be discovered, and that fossil fuel energy can never be used more efficiently than it is today,

They have to be discovered, otherwise we’ve got a great big problem on our hands. I’m just skeptical simply because I understand the science behind it, which allows me to sort through fact and fantasy.

If you do you research, you’ll find great advances in technology and zero changes in the underlying science behind it. Technological advances allow access to sources that were not accessible before, but return on energy in many cases is very low (and often doesn’t include all costs; i.e., use of non-energy resources such as water, by product effects such as pollution, etc,) or in some cases negative.

and that God will not provide what we need. So therefore we must disobey God’s order to be fruitful and multiply? Am I hearing you correctly?

Of course this is not what I’m saying. You’re trying to use emotions and accuse someone of heresy to prove your point. Radicalism on both sides solves nothing.

FWIW, God never stated our standard of living must be that of Western countries, nor that we should use fossil fuels at a rate faster than they are created, nor that we should multiply like rabbits. Furthermore, the type of living many live today has completely removed them from their natural environment, and they neither understand nature or the effects of their actions on nature, or should I say the world that God gave us?

The Vatican has spoken on man’s responsibility with his environment, and how to act. Do you disagree with the Vatican?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What exactly did “The Vatican” say?

Did God say we are limited to subsistence farming?