Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old April 6th, 2009 #21
DouglasReed
Don't call me Junior
 
DouglasReed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 293
DouglasReed
Default

Yeah, kudos to Jerry for that post.

The classic piece on Peak Oil:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html

I personally think oil is abiotic, but I don't know enough about the subject to argue the point one way or the other. I just don't see how prehistoric plants get miles underground. Also I completely subscribe to the expanding earth theory. Neal Adams' stuff on that is killer.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

You can find them on jewtube as well, but the navigation is a bit screwed up between the parts.
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #22
Fenrir
Alcoholic Racist Hater
 
Fenrir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 407
Fenrir
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott View Post
When the rate at which energy becomes available begins to decline the Jew cannot fail to emerge to drink our blood. He might even find ways to go after those of us who believe ourselves safe because we are not in debt. For example, the Jews might start manipulating the property tax laws. Every Jewish home? A temple. It has a religious tax-exemption. Every gentile home? A den of vice! It must be taxed double or triple, or a dozen times what it was before, until the goy homeowner can pay no more, at which time the sheriff will appear to dispossess him, and his house will be bought at auction by those Jewish banks who will already have in their hands the homes of the gentile debtors.

Jerry Abbott
While I agree that they'll start trying to find ways to get the stubborn goyim who won't go into debt to pay them, I find this scenario a bit steep. It would violate the doctrine of equality, and the "chosen" already have a lot of pressure on them to adhere to their own contrived ideology, as evidenced by the new surge in Leftist "anti-semitism" (a reaction to Jewish behavior in Israel).

A substantial rise in property taxes could be the impetus for violent rebellion (particularly among the gun-toting red-staters working steady-wage jobs).

The absolute subjugation of America won't be the same as it was for Russia. American Society, unlike Russian Society, is not composed of meek peasants. There's still plenty of the "you're no gooder'n me" attitude among American citizens (equality at its finest), no matter how stupid.

Americans, while Lemmings, are still principled (this is why Kwans, operating on equality principles rather than tribal principles, still refuse to see reality as America is destroyed before their eyes). A property tax differential based on race/religion would result in loud protest. If Jews tried to pull what you're describing, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

It's much easier for Organized Jewry to steal by inflating the money supply. When you tell a typical white that he's getting his hourly wages cut in half over the next five years, he's going to get pissed off. But if prices for goods and services doubles, and he receives a ten-percent pay raise in that same time, he'll be none the wiser. Blank eyed and busy with idle pleasures - the modern Kwan is a consumer and nothing more.
__________________
"It's about time for those of us still capable of thinking tribally to begin doing so." - WLP
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #23
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir View Post
It's much easier for Organized Jewry to steal by inflating the money supply. When you tell a typical white that he's getting his hourly wages cut in half over the next five years, he's going to get pissed off. But if prices for goods and services doubles, and he receives a ten-percent pay raise in that same time, he'll be none the wiser. Blank eyed and busy with idle pleasures - the modern Kwan is a consumer and nothing more.
70% of the official US economy is consumer spending. The jews depend on the official US economy to make their money.

They are killing the goose that lays the golden egg in destroying the American middle class. The middle class, who keep society running, will become voluntarily poor, but to adapt to this they will develop a local economy that cuts out the jewish and ZOG middlemen.

After many years of careful consideration, I have concluded that the jewish manipulation of our economy and culture has not been part of a long term evil plan, but more a way to "fart in our faces" and laugh about it for the short term. They don't plan for the long term, and this serves them well in some ways. Our economy is on a jewish timeline -- what is the profit for the next 3 months? Our culture of a 5 second attention span is also a jewish timeline.

An American middle class that becomes voluntarily poor will change these timelines. They will make their local economy sustainable in the long term, and they will start thinking about bigger and bigger ideas again, which will be VERY BAD FOR THE JEWS.

The power to liberate ourselves is in our hands. We have powerful European brains and tremendous accumulated knowledge at our fingertips. We just haven't been using them, collectively speaking. And so we need to teach more and more of our people how to actually use their brains, for a change.
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old April 14th, 2009 #24
Fenrir
Alcoholic Racist Hater
 
Fenrir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 407
Fenrir
Default

Yes, the Jews have been thinking only short-ter-guh, why do I give a shit explaining things... ?

If they wanted to raise property taxes, then that means rent prices will have to rise. This is not tolerable to the majority of the population. They can't deal with such a rise in rent prices without revolt.

I had a consistent theory to explain things, but I realize no one would give a shit about understanding it, so I stopped caring, and I'm happy to reap the rewards that come with understanding it - what about you?
__________________
"It's about time for those of us still capable of thinking tribally to begin doing so." - WLP
 
Old July 8th, 2009 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

World's largest oil field in...N. and S. Dakota and Montana
World's Biggest Oil Reserves
In S Dakota, E Montana
Author Unknown
7-7-9

The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bake is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Purdah Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bake.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U.S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

1. That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States.

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East - more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace - it has to.. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so!

Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

3. Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.

Now, I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

This is all true. Check it out at the link below. GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
 
Old July 9th, 2009 #26
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

Quote:
The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.
the US uses 20 million barrels a day. 4.3 billion barrels is about 215 days worth of oil just for the US. For world consumption, which is now at 75 million barrels, down from 84 million barrels, it's 2 whole months worth! 75 million times 60 days equals 4.5 billion barrels.

The person hyping the report claims there is 503 billion barrels, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the report. You need to actually read the link, and not just the hyped up spintro for the link.
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old July 10th, 2009 #27
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 983
Jerry Abbott
Default

1 cubic meter of natural gas, burned in oxygen, gives 3.9e7 J of heat energy, which must be used, subject to thermal and mechanical losses, to generate electricity. Doing some conversion in units, one cubic foot of natural gas yields 0.306 kWh (in primary heat).

Burning 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas yields 6.12e12 kWh (in primary heat). The annual electrical energy consumption of the United States is 4e12 kWh. Once you account for the thermal, mechanical, and transmission losses, the Haynesville Shale won't even provide 1 year's worth of electrical power to the United States, even if the upper estimate for its capacity is true.

I think that the Peak Oilers are probably right. From what I've heard, the big oil fields in Saudi Arabia are getting the seawater pressure treatment to keep them producing oil at high rates for as long as there remains any oil at all to be produced. What would have been an almost "bell curve" in extraction versus time thus becomes a plateau, followed by a cliff -- a sharp drop to zero -- when the oil is finally gone.

Remember, this depletion phenomenon has already been observed in the case of individual wells, particular oil fields, and whole countries. It's not so much of a generalization to figure it will happen to the entire world. It hasn't happened YET, but it will ONLY happen ONCE.

A significantly more conservative estimate for the utility of the Bakken oil field is found here. An obvious motive for hyped resource claims is to induce investors to speculate and then lose their shirts.

Jerry Abbott
 
Old July 10th, 2009 #28
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
 
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Oy Ze Hate
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kievsky View Post
the US uses 20 million barrels a day. 4.3 billion barrels is about 215 days worth of oil just for the US. For world consumption, which is now at 75 million barrels, down from 84 million barrels, it's 2 whole months worth! 75 million times 60 days equals 4.5 billion barrels.

The person hyping the report claims there is 503 billion barrels, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the report. You need to actually read the link, and not just the hyped up spintro for the link.
I merely cut and pasted that from another forum. It's probably bunkum. You know a lot more about this stuff than me.

Nice to read your posts and essays Mr. Abbott. Way over my head, but still nice to read. The one on the front page about Blacks and IQ was exceptional.

Affirmative Action truly is an anti-white abomination.
 
Old August 4th, 2009 #29
Magog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,191
Magog
Default

what they want is all the oil to go to china so they can sell us cheap wothless plastic shit for 10,000 times cost.
 
Old August 4th, 2009 #30
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Annual Average Domestic Crude Oil Prices
1946-Present
U.S. Average
(in $/bbl.)
Year Nominal Inflation Adjusted
1946 $1.63 $17.73
1947 $2.16 $20.84
1948 $2.77 $24.86
1949 $2.77 $25.10
1950 $2.77 $24.84
1951 $2.77 $23.02
1952 $2.77 $22.50
1953 $2.92 $23.49
1954 $2.99 $24.02
1955 $2.93 $23.56
1956 $2.94 $23.35
1957 $3.14 $24.09
1958 $3.00 $22.42
1959 $3.00 $22.20
1960 $2.91 $21.24
1961 $2.85 $20.57
1962 $2.85 $20.32
1963 $2.91 $20.51
1964 $3.00 $20.86
1965 $3.01 $20.59
1966 $3.10 $20.60
1967 $3.12 $20.18
1968 $3.18 $19.69
1969 $3.32 $19.53
1970 $3.39 $18.84
1971 $3.60 $19.18
1972 $3.60 $20.57
1973 $4.75 $22.89
1974 $9.35 $40.84
1975 $12.21 $48.91
1976 $13.10 $49.66
1977 $14.40 $51.22
1978 $14.95 $49.47
1979 $25.10 $73.89
1980 $37.42 $98.07
1981 $35.75 $84.93
1982 $31.83 $71.20
1983 $29.08 $63.00
1984 $28.75 $59.71
1985 $26.92 $53.98
1986 $14.44 $28.41
1987 $17.75 $33.69
1988 $14.87 $27.16
1989 $18.33 $31.88
1990 $23.19 $38.17
1991 $20.20 $31.99
1992 $19.25 $29.59
1993 $16.75 $25.02
1994 $15.66 $22.78
1995 $16.75 $23.71
1996 $20.46 $28.12
1997 $18.64 $25.05
1998 $11.91 $15.77
1999 $16.56 $21.39
2000 $27.39 $34.29
2001 $23.00 $28.03
2002 $22.81 $27.33
2003 $27.69 $32.47
2004 $37.66 $42.97
2005 $50.04 $55.21
2006 $58.30 $62.36
2007 $64.20 $66.66
2008 $91.48 $91.35
2009 Partial $43.11 $43.56

For cognoscenti, primary heat is adiabatic.
 
Old August 8th, 2009 #31
Brian Stone
Supreme Allied Commander
 
Brian Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 848
Brian Stone
Default

I think this whole debate is ridiculous. When people pay for anything in a free market economy, it is usually a purchase made with respect to every other purchase opportunity, not a single commodity like oil. In the case of energy, the purchase of oil will be made in accordance with market needs. Other sources will rise up to meet needs as the price of oil rises. Once economies of scale kick in for these new technologies, the prices will go back down.

Back in the 80's oil fell to less than 20 dollars a barrel and that killed off research into solar energy. As oil has risen to 80-100 dollar per barrel in recent years, solar research has taken off again. Frankly, we are there now. As a story linked from Kurzweilai.net pointed out the other day, crystaline silicon solar power cells are actually cost competitive with commercial power NOW. We simply need to get the infrastructure in place.

Even if solar power didn't pan out, there are a lot of other technologies. MIT technology review had an article a while back about how Craig Venter is looking to put bio-engineered algae, producing light oil, into production within 10 months.

The biggest problem in all this, as usual, is the ham handed government meddling. For example, corn ethanol subsidies which entrench an approach that can never work in the end.

The problem with peak oil advocates is that they make the classic mistake of all socialist. They look at problem in isolation without understanding the larger economic context. Part of the larger economic context is hidden from them (i.e. wealth creation and business building) and so they distrust economic models that rely on such things. From their perspective, there is no direct linear relationship between economic cause and effect. They believe (wrongly) that government planning is more rational and predictable.

I believe this why they get their analysis wrong.

WN have an additional error. I think there is a fair amount of wishful thinking going on. The Great WN Apocalypse demands the descent of civilization into a Mad Max style collapse. Somehow (waving our hands furiously here) this will save white people from the ignominious slow roll genocide currently being conducted against them. Because of this error in thinking WN tend to gleefully attach themselves like a lamprey to any disaster scenario that floats by.

What is more likely to happen is that we will muddle through (as I have said before). Oil will fluctuate and more and more technologies will come on line as the basic science and manufacturing improves. Efficiencies will also increase and eventually those two trends will converge such that the current energy "crisis" will simply fade from our memory (to be replaced by another, no doubt).

We may have a Gerald Celente style "collapse of sorts, but that will be due to the credit bubble and hyper-inflation, not oil, and even then it wont give us what we want. All it will do is entrench and justify the depredations of the government.

In the end, if white people are to be saved, it will be by (intelligent) action, not by sitting around rooting for the end of the world.

-Brian
__________________
Create the world you want to live in

Do something positive for White Nationalism. Start your own business. Go to http://www.ThirtyDayChallenge.com for a basic primer.
 
Old August 8th, 2009 #32
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

Quote:
Other sources will rise up to meet needs as the price of oil rises. Once economies of scale kick in for these new technologies, the prices will go back down.
Brian,

I have, in other posts, spoken about why oil is going to be very difficult to replace. It is a very portable energy, it had a very high EROEI in its heyday, it is used for many things besides burning diesel and gasoline such as plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, et cetera.

What do you plan to pave the roads with? Solar panels? Algae?

Replacement technologies such as building massive windmill farms would require a large oil based economy to ramp up.

So if you want to make a credible technofix argument, demonstrate a knowledge of all the things oil is used for, and what techno replacements you envision for oil, and how you think those technofixes will be put into place as the EROEI of oil extraction moves ever closer to neutral.

You are a smart guy, but you are picking an argument in an arena where you have not done enough research. You think it's a slam dunk debate. it's not. The technofixers have been slammed. You come along, you want to rehash the technofix argument. That's fine, but do your research first. Take this debate seriously, if you want to step into it at all.

I actually know some algae energy investors. It's a good idea, but it's not scaleable to replace 85 milllion barrels of oil a day.
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old August 9th, 2009 #33
Brian Stone
Supreme Allied Commander
 
Brian Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 848
Brian Stone
Default

Actually I HAVE done research in this area Kievsky.

I worked in a RF plasma deposition lab for over 2 years (I'm dating myself there, lol) ,working on making better semiconductor substrates and finding better ways to deposit superfine layers of silicon dioxide on crystaline silicon wafers. My specific job (actually my teams jobs) involved measuring the thickness of the SiO2, creating computerized 3D surface topology maps and determining the resistivity and conductivity of the chips.

After that I worked on molecular modeling techniques, which wasn't directly involved in solar research, but was still in the general vicinity (in terms of scale).

Beyond that, I have built my own solar panels and PEM fuel cells and am in the process of writing a book on those subjects.

So believe me, I am very much aware of the technology.

My previous post wasn't meant to recapitulate the history of this technology or do a run down of all the technical pro and cons, it was simply meant to make the point that the problem is really more economy and infrastructure than technical.

I could write a book on this subject (In fact I AM), so I really don't want to post all that either.

Gasoline has about 34 MJ of energy per liter. That kind of energy density will be hard to beat for something that burns that slow (i.e. isn't explosive). Also, as you point out, gasoline is portable.

I have made the point on VNN before about this very thing. As I pointed out then, and I will point out again, the solution to our energy problems will be in the form of differentiated solutions.

What will happen is that these differentiated technologies will percolate throughout the economy and find niches where they can be useful. They wont all be able to replace gasoline everywhere, but they will replace gasoline in their respective niches. This in turn will free up gasoline for the wider market.

This is a common theme in market economies. Cars for example, went from being mostly steel, to mostly aluminum, plastic and ceramic because of this trend. It will happen in energy production as well.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point, I just wanted to point out that the problem is largely economic, not technical.

Brian
__________________
Create the world you want to live in

Do something positive for White Nationalism. Start your own business. Go to http://www.ThirtyDayChallenge.com for a basic primer.
 
Old August 9th, 2009 #34
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Stone View Post
Actually I HAVE done research in this area Kievsky.

I worked in a RF plasma deposition lab for over 2 years (I'm dating myself there, lol) ,working on making better semiconductor substrates and finding better ways to deposit superfine layers of silicon dioxide on crystaline silicon wafers. My specific job (actually my teams jobs) involved measuring the thickness of the SiO2, creating computerized 3D surface topology maps and determining the resistivity and conductivity of the chips.

After that I worked on molecular modeling techniques, which wasn't directly involved in solar research, but was still in the general vicinity (in terms of scale).

Beyond that, I have built my own solar panels and PEM fuel cells and am in the process of writing a book on those subjects.

So believe me, I am very much aware of the technology.

My previous post wasn't meant to recapitulate the history of this technology or do a run down of all the technical pro and cons, it was simply meant to make the point that the problem is really more economy and infrastructure than technical.

I could write a book on this subject (In fact I AM), so I really don't want to post all that either.

Gasoline has about 34 MJ of energy per liter. That kind of energy density will be hard to beat for something that burns that slow (i.e. isn't explosive). Also, as you point out, gasoline is portable.

I have made the point on VNN before about this very thing. As I pointed out then, and I will point out again, the solution to our energy problems will be in the form of differentiated solutions.

What will happen is that these differentiated technologies will percolate throughout the economy and find niches where they can be useful. They wont all be able to replace gasoline everywhere, but they will replace gasoline in their respective niches. This in turn will free up gasoline for the wider market.

This is a common theme in market economies. Cars for example, went from being mostly steel, to mostly aluminum, plastic and ceramic because of this trend. It will happen in energy production as well.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point, I just wanted to point out that the problem is largely economic, not technical.

Brian
Ok, so you do some technical work. How do you plan to pave the roads? Are you planning on keeping the car system going, or moving to mass transit?

The problem is still a technical one. You haven't said very much in the above post about how you will replace plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals, and keep the cars running.
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old August 9th, 2009 #35
Joe_J.
Radio active
 
Joe_J.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Gone to work on the lemming sites against Big Jew.
Posts: 9,439
Blog Entries: 2
Joe_J.
Default

Quote:
Replacement technologies such as building massive windmill farms would require a large oil based economy to ramp up.
Maybe off topic, but thought I would add that the NC General Assembly passed a law last week banning windmills from mountain tops.

I am working on solar at my home. Hot water for my boiler to offset oil use but you can only get so much heat per day out of a panel. Also have some solar for backup power for my home. Mainly, it will run the fridge, the boiler and a few lights. That is it. Anyone that is going total solar or water, etc. will have to police their energy use and won't be able to live like they do with a power plant supplying every electron.

Getting rid of oil is not rational. Too many things are dependent on it. I agree with Kievsky. Just fertilizer alone. How many would starve without it? If peak oil theory holds true then civilization is going to go backwards for a while should we run out. And, yes, we do need a petroleum based society to make solar panels and other items using plastic.

As for roads, Kievsky, I note that some of the Roman roads still exist. Meanwhile, my state paves a road and we are lucky if it can last three or four years.

@ Brian: I used to have to replace a lot of CMOS devices when I did repair work. Why can't you fuckers make them less susceptible to static, overvoltage, etc?
__________________
The average kwan is of such low quality that he'd shoot himself if he had any self awareness.
-Joe from Ohio
 
Old August 11th, 2009 #36
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default for Brian Stone -- the difficult transition to renewables

Quote:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5588

Renewable Transition 2: EROEI Uncertainty

Posted by jeffvail on August 10, 2009 - 10:11am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: eroei, original, peak oil, renewable energy, systems theory, transition[list all tags]

In the first part of this series, I discussed the practicality of a future transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources—specifically renewable sources of electricity such as solar and wind power. One little-discussed hurdle is the fact that, because we must invest energy in renewables up front, a rapid transition threatens to greatly impact near-term demand for energy resulting in unwanted economic and political effects. Another is that, because we will initially use fossil fuels to build our renewable infrastructure, the transition to renewables will result in a short-term increase in carbon emissions. The extent to which both of these impacts will be significant, even their potential to foreclose the possibility of such a transition, will turn on the net energy, or Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), of available renewable energy technology.

As I alluded to last time, while there are many EROEI numbers floating about for solar, wind, etc., these numbers are far less accurate or verifiable than is, I believe, commonly assumed. I’ll argue that our measurements of EROEI are fundamentally flawed, at least for some purposes. Most EROEI studies serve as a tool to compare different technologies or to gauge advances in technology--a role for which they are generally well suited. However, when viewed from a complete systems perspective, current EROEI figures fail to provide an inclusive measurement. I’ll argue that, for purposes of planning a civilizational transition, a meaningful meansure must be inclusive of all energy inputs. Finally, I’ll propose a possible proxy-measurement to address the methodological issues surrounding EROEI.

“Conventional” EROEI vs. “systemic” EROEI measurements: I’ve been fairly candid with my critique of conventional EROEI measurements, even suggesting that many such measurements are more accurately characterized as marketing copy than empirical, verifiable measurements. This is perhaps a bit unfair--the core of my critique is that these conventional EROEI measurements, while valuable and perhaps even accurate for some purposes, are wholly inadequate to measure the systemic implications of a transition to these alternatives. Here, to assist this critique, I’ve divided EROEI measurements into two broad categories.

What I’m calling “conventional” EROEI measures use an artificial boundary to simplify their accounting by excluding energy that, while certainly an input, is several steps removed from the direct manufacture of the renewable. This includes standard input-output analysis, process analysis, and hybrids of these two. This type of EROEI estimate (as it must fairly be called) seems to have utility in two areas: 1) comparing the relative EROEI of similar renewables (for example, two different turbine designs), and 2) measuring the progress of design advances (for example, the effect of improving the design of one given type of turbine).

The second type of EROEI is what I’m calling “systemic” EROEI. While I think this terminology is self-explanatory, here I mean a complete system-wide measure of all outputs compared to all inputs. The value of such a measure is in determining the viability of such technologies to support human civilization as a whole, to sustain certain levels of growth (or contraction), etc.

The problem with calculating EROEI: Why the need for two sets of EROEI calculations? Why not just use one fundamentally “true” measurement methodology and call it a day? The answer is that measuring EROEI is far more challenging than is commonly presumed because of (among several reasons) the following question: how attenuated an energy input is necessarily included in our calculations? Certainly the electricity and natural gas used in a turbine manufacturing plant must be included. What about the energy used to build that plant? What about the energy used to build the machinery used to build that plant? What about the energy used to build the plant to build that machinery, ad infinitum? This is just the tip of the iceberg, but already you can see where this is going: we must draw an artificial boundary if we hope to actually count these energy inputs, but by so doing we necessarily exclude a portion of the actual energy inputs—inputs the significance of which are unknown and unknowable (because we can only know their significance by actually counting them—which brings us back to our initial problem). The outcome of these methodologies, while admittedly the result of actual counting of measurable inputs and outputs, remains but an estimate.

Are these excluded inputs inconsequential? Do we really need to count the energy used to harvest the grains used to feed the longshoreman that loaded the component ores on a dock in Asia as an energy input to the turbine parts that were produced from that ore? And what is the aggregate impact of these attenuated inputs? First, I suggest that we do not and cannot know, as argued above. See the figure below:
rest at link
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old August 13th, 2009 #37
Brian Stone
Supreme Allied Commander
 
Brian Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 848
Brian Stone
Default

The problem with innovation is that if it were predictable, it wouldn't be innovation. All we can say is that it will happen.

The socialist mindset insist that present problems will continue in a linear fashion toward an indefinite future, the free enterprise mindset insist that if the price is right, someone will find a solution.

History is a standing rebuke to the former proposition and a continual comfort to the latter.

Beyond that, I can only say that a lot really depends on what you WANT to believe.

My experience in life is that people find the solutions they are looking for if they look hard enough. The question is, what solutions are you looking for?

Brian
__________________
Create the world you want to live in

Do something positive for White Nationalism. Start your own business. Go to http://www.ThirtyDayChallenge.com for a basic primer.
 
Old August 13th, 2009 #38
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,018
George Witzgall
Default

hey brian, this is a weird question and feel free to ignore. I noticed you were a foster child growing up and it seemed you had a few foster families (although they seem to have done really well by you).

was just wondering if you think being adopted at a young age for life by a homo couple (let's say two lesbians ince that is less controversial than two men), while nowhere near as good as a hetero couple, would be better than being a foster child?
__________________
I am Aryan.
 
Old August 13th, 2009 #39
Brian Stone
Supreme Allied Commander
 
Brian Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 848
Brian Stone
Default

Quote:
@ Brian: I used to have to replace a lot of CMOS devices when I did repair work. Why can't you fuckers make them less susceptible to static, overvoltage, etc?
Alas, what really matters is how close an EMP event is and the size of the circuit element, so I'm afraid you'll have to blame God.

Whenever you have a static discharge, it emits an EMP that in turn induces a current in nearby circuit elements. In modern integrated circuit elements (e.g. and intel cpu) the circuit tracings are about 35 nanometers wide. That is about 3-4 hydrogen atoms wide.

Such small circuits can easily be shorted out by even a seemingly insignificant static burst, but they are generally well protected as long as they are properly installed.

I never really made cmos chips per se' though. My research was at a more basic level (i.e. developing consistent deposition procedures to be used in chip design)

-Brian
__________________
Create the world you want to live in

Do something positive for White Nationalism. Start your own business. Go to http://www.ThirtyDayChallenge.com for a basic primer.
 
Old August 13th, 2009 #40
Brian Stone
Supreme Allied Commander
 
Brian Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 848
Brian Stone
Default

Quote:
was just wondering if you think being adopted at a young age for life by a homo couple (let's say two lesbians ince that is less controversial than two men), while nowhere near as good as a hetero couple, would be better than being a foster child?
At the risk sounding like I'm copping out, I guess I could say "that depends."
It depends on the adopting parents involved.

I wouldn't have said that a couple decades ago. I would have said unequivocally that being placed in foster care is infinitely preferable to growing up with homos (of either gender), but now I'm not so sure.

Even when I was a ward of the state, there was a lot of corruption, perversion, incompetence, and general mayhem. These days it is tremendously worse. Frankly, if you put a female child in one of these state run homes, she WILL be sexually abused. Boys sometimes as well.

Add to that to the drugs and unsupervised delinquents (they mix in child offenders with normal foster kids because they think it makes everyone feel better) as well the indifferent staff members and it's a wonder any kid makes it out whole.

One of the dirty little secrets of these 'group homes' is that they are run by the lowest common denominators of the "social work" professions (psychology, etc). These jobs pay next to nothing and the people who take those jobs are people who almost flunked out of college. The upshot here is that there is a high percentage of niggers (yes that is the appropriate word in this context).

These cretins are barely literate and often on the prowl. In fact I can say with a great deal of certainty that one of the reasons they take these jobs is for the chance to score some underage ass (male or female).

Anyway, my point here is that a child in these circumstances in going to encounter homos, it's just a matter of how and where. Under those circumstances, being raised by a couple of lesbians my not be the worst choice.

My first choice however would be for a loving and supportive foster home. The first foster home I stayed in (the farm) was mostly like that, except that the foster parents were both in their early 60's by the time I was there. They had kept children for over 30 years and had become very distant and cold toward the kids (I expect as a defense measure).

-Brian
__________________
Create the world you want to live in

Do something positive for White Nationalism. Start your own business. Go to http://www.ThirtyDayChallenge.com for a basic primer.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.
Page generated in 0.21264 seconds.