Peak Oil

[thomasantony]

I haven't followed the whole thread. Not that much patient . Anyway, I also like the idea of Thorium reactors .. why? Well that would solve a lot of energy problems in my country seeing that we have the largest reserves of thorium in the world .

~
Thomas

 

[Urwumpe]

I haven't followed the whole thread. Not that much patient . Anyway, I also like the idea of Thorium reactors .. why? Well that would solve a lot of energy problems in my country seeing that we have the largest reserves of thorium in the world .

~
Thomas

Pssst... don't say that too loud. Somebody might also need and want it.

 

[Moonwalker]

My first post in this new Orbiter forum

Well, we were always told that we have reached peak oil. I don't know the word in English but in German it's something like 'oil constant'. In 1919 the estimated reserves were 9 years for the US and in 1948 it was 20 years globally. As time went by the estimations leveled out at 30 to 40 years. In 1975 it was 35 years and in 2003 it was 40 years. Today it's even 50 years.

The estimations not only arise from new discovered spouters. It rather points to a market mechanism. People still pay for and they'll continue to do so. The OPEC seems to find out the acceptance limit. I personally don't pay directly. I'm happy with my bike and two healthy feet.

Anyway, I don't think that there will be any real peak oil within this century. But rather a lot of market mechanisms and politics to get the money out of peoples pockets. We really should walk away from using oil and its dictatorships. It's in the hands of everyone of us. When I was 18 I decided not to drive cars which use 100 years old technology but rather wait for cheap electric or hydrogen cars. It was 10 years ago. I still go that way today and I'll continue as long as most humans continue to use old primitve technologies...

 

[simonpro]

I looked at the abstracts, and don't see anything that hasn't been addressed elsewhere. I don't doubt that there are implementation issues with liquid thorium reactors. The question in my mind is why there haven't been research and development programs to identify and address those issues. Such a promising technology should have been explored in depth ages ago.

Yeah, the abstracts were mainly for overview for those who hadn't heard much about the Thorium Reactor (which is probably just about everyone here )

Anyway, there are plenty of research programmes into thorium reactors. Oak Ridge is hoping to build a new thorium reactor, and the Idaho National Laboratory is already running a thorium breeder reactor.
I'm pretty sure there's another one in the USA somewhere too, but can't think where it is off the top of my head. Norway and Sweden are also collaboratively working on designs for a new type of thorium reactor (which is interesting politically for sweden ). Chances are Britain will be joining the party soon too, as it needs a new generation of reactor and they're likely to jump onboard with whatever the Americans are doing (depending on the timescale, not sure if Thorium plants will be viable in the time they need them by).

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, we were always told that we have reached peak oil. I don't know the word in English but in German it's something like 'oil constant'. In 1919 the estimated reserves were 9 years for the US and in 1948 it was 20 years globally. As time went by the estimations leveled out at 30 to 40 years. In 1975 it was 35 years and in 2003 it was 40 years. Today it's even 50 years.

Which is very interesting as Peak Oil is a pretty new term. And oil constant is the wrong translation - the official term of "Ölfördermaximum" can be translated as peak oil production. It is no global economic term, but a local attribute for each oil field. It only gets a global phenomena, when you sum up the many oil fields into a global oil production prediction.

The why there is a peak for each oil field is pretty simple: You have only limited oil and each of them, and extracting it requires much more effort during the end. So, you slowly increase production first by more holes, as long as the gas pressure inside the oil is enough for pushing it out. Later by more pumps and more powerful pumps. And at one point, you cannot drill new holes and construct more powerful pumps as fast as production rate drops.

Globally it means you also have to use less attractive oil fields, which are more expensive to use and can never reach high production rates.

The estimations not only arise from new discovered spouters. It rather points to a market mechanism. People still pay for and they'll continue to do so. The OPEC seems to find out the acceptance limit. I personally don't pay directly. I'm happy with my bike and two healthy feet.

Peak oil is not the end of oil. Peak oil means, you can no longer produce more, even if the demand is there.

For some fields in the world, Peak Oil was already reached (for example in Germany). Others will follow. Some studies even suggest, we already reached the global peak oil (but the plot looks different), others predict it for the next years.

I think personally, the truth is that without the OPEC limiting their possible production for decades, we would have had peak oil already. One day, even the OPEC will have to reduce their production because there is no more oil left to produce. And then, God may have mercy on us, if we have not found alternative energy carriers.

 

[Moonwalker]

I was trying to find a word for "Erdölkonstante" and not "Ölfördermaximum".

Because of the 'Erdölkonstante' I don't think that there won't be no more oil left within this century as it also did not within the last century. There might be even more undetected oil left as we produced until today. The only problem might be how to get it on some places.

But who knows, the Antarctic is going to be iceless for the first time still this year...

 

[Urwumpe]

I was trying to find a word for "Erdölkonstante" and not "Ölfördermaximum".

Because of the 'Erdölkonstante' I don't think that there won't be no more oil left within this century as it also did not within the last century. There might be even more undetected oil left as we produced until today. The only problem might be how to get it on some places.

But who knows, the Antarctic is going to be iceless for the first time still this year...

Did you understand "Erdölkonstante" or constant reserves correctly? It does not tell you that oil is getting depleted, but says that the ratio of the amount of oil available in accessed oilfields and the amount of oil consumed every year is constant for many years.

It is just a hypothesis turned to a theory, like the Mierscheidt law.

And the day, the Antarctic will be free of ice will still have to come. You mixed it with the Arctic, which had been ice free during the summer quite often in history, but it is still a rare event. If it happens more often than every 200 years, it would be something special...

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes I just mixed the two words Antarctic and Arctic The Antarctic has the biggest expanse of ice at the moment (and its deep sea temperatures decreased).

Anyway, the static range of oil is the time span when oil is getting depleted concerning the current production and reserves. But the static range leveled out at 30 to 40 years past the 1950's until today although oil production increased. That is called "Erdölkonstante". And so I'm going to think that this won't change in future too. In 1975 it was 35 years (the static range), in 2003 it was 40 years and today it's 50 years.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes I just mixed the two words Antarctic and Arctic The Antarctic has the biggest expanse of ice at the moment (and its deep sea temperatures decreased).

Anyway, the static range of oil is the time span when oil is getting depleted concerning the current production and reserves. But the static range leveled out at 30 to 40 years past the 1950's until today although oil production increased. That is called "Erdölkonstante". And so I'm going to think that this won't change in future too. In 1975 it was 35 years (the static range), in 2003 it was 40 years and today it's 50 years.

Ever heard of the Mierscheidt law?

Just research it and then tell me after some thinking: Is something a constant, because a fluctuating function is fluctuating around a number?

That is why "Erdölkonstante" is considered more a scientific joke, than a real word - because the ratio is something, which is not constant at all.

I think also, you should research why the reserves and the production are constant for 30 years. My personal theory is: OPEC lowered the production low enough for allowing the accessing of new oil fields catch up again.

 

[Moonwalker]

I couldn't find the Mierscheidt law, but I found the Mierscheid law

Of course 'Erdölkonstante' is a joke but a constant estimation exists either way. But that the oil is going to deplete in just a few decades is a real joke to justify high prices.

I won't pay either way. I don't have a car and even no driver's licence (I even managed not to own a mobile phone until today).

 

[Urwumpe]

I think what really pushes the price is just the concept that the demand increases faster as the production. Even if we could swim in oil under the surface...

On Thorium: I just noticed that Germany once operated a thorium fueled High temperature reactor. Was a complete failure, as all test objectives had not been reached - and the design was too expensive.

The ultimative killer for it was a piloting error - a reactor pilot was ordered to fill 41 control spheres into the reactor, but the automatic system allowed only 60 as minimum (A classical design error). The lock design for the reactor also had some tiny flaws, but the main problem was that one sphere got stuck and the pilot finally attempted to get it loose by shooting more and more spheres at it - clogging the channel for the spheres with debris instead of freeing it. Also, because of an operator error, contaminated helium coolant was able to leave the lock and escape over the camin to the outside.

The accident was for a while not noticed from outside, because a few days earlier Chernobyl exploded and caused higher radiation levels - where the amount from the THTR plant was not initially obvious - until better calculations showed that the majority of the radiation in this region was from the THTR. At this point, the operator started to slowly admit the accident...

I think realizing a new type of thorium reactor will be even harder in Germany, because the name Thorium will forever be tainted by this failed prototype and the mismanagement of the operator.

 

[pattersoncr]

I won't pay either way. I don't have a car and even no driver's licence (I even managed not to own a mobile phone until today).

Oh yes you will. Just because you don't buy gasoline (or petrol to you europeans ) doesn't mean you're not paying more because of high oil prices. Almost every single product you buy has it's cost tied in some way to the cost of crude oil. Most plastics are made from petrolium and higher transportation costs drive of the price of most other products.

 

[Moonwalker]

Oh yes you will. Just because you don't buy gasoline (or petrol to you europeans ) doesn't mean you're not paying more because of high oil prices. Almost every single product you buy has it's cost tied in some way to the cost of crude oil. Most plastics are made from petrolium and higher transportation costs drive of the price of most other products.

You're right of course. But it's a difference if I drive a car for a few hundred dollars or euros each month or not just to move my small rear from one place to another every minute I left my home. The money I save would enable me to take a plane for vacation about every 3 month or so (depending on the car and kilometers I drive). But I even didn't take a plane since 1998.

Of course I have to pay for a little bit of oil indirectly for plastics which actually is rather minor. But for me the important point is not to pay for the oil mafia purposely. I never bought only one drop of gas at the gas station myself (and I won't too in future) to put it into the atmosphere just to move my small rear a few kilometers. How stupid can I get to waste a lot of my money that way, being the slave of some Arabian desert dogs, people like Bush and tax hungry politicians. No way

 

[ar81]

Ideology is just political philosophy without the philosophy. Ideology absolutely, positively did not end with the cold war. And to say that WHO does something has no effect on WHAT or HOW something is done is ... beyond my comprehension.

I think I disagree a little bit...

Ideology is based on belief. If you believe money will rain from the sky, it will not. Economy is a game that has its own rules. Earth will not be flat because someone believes it is. Economy will not produce an output because you believe it will.

The "lost years" of the reforms in the 1990s demonstrated how ideological reform leads to disaster. They used an incomplete macroeconomic model with an incomplete set of equations, and therefore the economy they were creating was recessive.

The problem is that economic policy and political economy are not the same. Capitalist and Communist ideologies go for political economy, or economy based on belief, and that's why their models are incomplete and therefore they produce undesirable output.

Oh yes, Iran and Saudi Arabia are cooperating in keeping the price high. Huh? OPEC is less united politically and has less monopoly power now than it did in the 1970s. That's simply a fact.

I have learned that political alignment does not mean economical alignment. Nicaragua signed CAFTA with US and it is still making deals with Iran and Venezuela. I think your antitrust friends might like to rethink legislation in the light of this.

Also, if you have friends that work with money laundering legislation I think there are some ways in which it could be a legal and non financial money laundering scheme inside US.

I worked making policies against fraud and money laundering. After reverse engineering laundering I discovered thare are 3 generic types of financial laundering and I also discovered one that is not financial. The problem with that non financial scheme is that it is legal.

Ok -- you're wrong (and if you think your thinking on this subject isn't ideological, you are sadly mistaken). Production is BARELY, BARELY meeting demand -- NOW -- and demand is growing. That's the problem. There is no problem whatsoever with distribution. There is a close match of refining capacity to demand, but that's not the bottleneck. IT'S DEMAND.

That is not what I heard in CNN.
Apparently demand is covered and if they raise production the only thing that would happen is that they would increase their inventories.
It seems there is an investigation on the matter. But my bet is that if politicians are involved, then nothing will happen.

Do you have any information that CNN does not?

 

[GregBurch]

Unfortunately, I'm diving into a couple of weeks of intense activity with real-world work (that involves hydrocarbon energy :lol, so I don't know if I'm going to have time to respond in detail, but I have to quickly say this:

That is not what I heard in CNN.
Apparently demand is covered and if they raise production the only thing that would happen is that they would increase their inventories.
It seems there is an investigation on the matter. But my bet is that if politicians are involved, then nothing will happen.

Do you have any information that CNN does not?

CNN? You mean the home of economics and politics ultra-moron Lou Dobbs? I'm afraid relying on CNN for meaningful information about these issues is like studying Shakespeare based on Sesame Street.

 

[Urwumpe]

CNN? You mean the home of economics and politics ultra-moron Lou Dobbs? I'm afraid relying on CNN for meaningful information about these issues is like studying Shakespeare based on Sesame Street.

Hey, you shouldn't rate a book by it's cover. First of all, even Al-Djazira has good stuff sometimes in their international program.

Second, I learned lot's of about technology and history in a children's program - Die Sendung mit der Maus. (Their explanation of how the internet works should also be seen by US senators - maybe they will finally get the clue)

The coolest shows of these was how a Airbus gets build and tested, running over three episodes, if I remember correctly - the Airbus of the show is still flying in Lufthansa service and wears the mouse logo... but enough offtopic.

I think we should not argue about the power of ideology. Without ideology, police or army would not work. Self-discipline would also lack.

So, you can't use ideology as tag for something you don't like, even though it has gotten a negative sound by the marxist use of the term.

Economy also not follows it's own rules without punishment. Any economy without real value behind, like you experience often in high finance, is doomed. That is also the danger behind any economic concept - communism mostly failed economically in the world, when it decoupled the reality from the economy. And it made even capitalist countries look in awe, when it was keeping pace with reality - just look at the USSR in the early 1960s, when it had a stronger economic growth as the USA.

I thus believe, the only working ideology is not capitalism or communism - but realism. And capitalism is, by design, closer to reality and has faster reactions.

 

[ar81]

CNN? You mean the home of economics and politics ultra-moron Lou Dobbs? I'm afraid relying on CNN for meaningful information about these issues is like studying Shakespeare based on Sesame Street.

I started to suspect this some time ago when the US crisis "started".
I found the gap/problem in the macroeconomic model since 2004 and I recalled crisis of employment of 2003 that suggested me that US economy was going down.

At the first signs of mortgage credit crisis I knew that it was the result of procrastination, and I knew that the root cause of the crisis is not mortgage as CNN presented it. The root cause of economic crisis is that money is leaking out from USA due to govt deficit and trade deficit, and economic measures have only passed the crisis from financial companies to US citizens in a way that procrastinates crisis, so the next president will deal with the effects of artificially low interest rates.

CNN started to look like a non reliable source, and now you confirm this. This is why I am not affraid of presenting ideas to smart people like you, so you can refute. This is a necessary evil to find what is true with scientific skepticism. We cannot fall in love with ideas.

Thanks for confirming me what I already suspected. Thanks for proving those ideas wrong. I was not wrong, those ideas were. I am not my ideas, so you can refute freely.

 

[simonpro]

Wait..does this mean there was a time when CNN was a reliable source?

Apparently demand is covered and if they raise production the only thing that would happen is that they would increase their inventories.

It's true that the majority of oil companies have spare capacity, but that doesn't mean that demand isn't outstripping the theoretical supply.
Most oil companies don't want to run at full capacity, as it's never a good idea. Just think about it, perhaps you have a car that has a top speed of, say, 200km/h. Would you drive it at that speed? No, it's less safe, less efficient and less reliable. The same is true of oil production.
If you constantly run at maximum cpaacity then things will break, and then your production capacity will be completely screwed. You always need a safety margin in there.

 

[ar81]

Wait..does this mean there was a time when CNN was a reliable source?

Well, I thought it was... :sorry:

 

[pattersoncr]

Most oil companies don't want to run at full capacity, as it's never a good idea. Just think about it, perhaps you have a car that has a top speed of, say, 200km/h. Would you drive it at that speed? No, it's less safe, less efficient and less reliable. The same is true of oil production.
If you constantly run at maximum cpaacity then things will break, and then your production capacity will be completely screwed. You always need a safety margin in there.

The car running flat-out to an oil refinery running at max capacity is a poor analogy. An industrial plant is generally most efficient when running at capacity. The plant I work at (vitamins and food additives) has some sections which are over sized for current demand. What we do is run at capacity for 8 months of the year then shut down those production areas in the summer when energy costs are higher. This is a great strategy provided there is sufficient storage capacity. Production at reduced capacity due to breakdown can (somewhat) be compensated for by shortening your shutdown interval.