- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 6 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@glenn_nl, Thanks for asking me: “[…] why you’re insisting that fossil fuel is required for renewables?”
A: Wind turbines take c450 tons of steel and c900 cubic meters of concrete per MW. Solar takes c300 tons of steel and c100 cubic meters of concrete per MW. per MW. Combined cycle gas plants take orders of magnitude less under c50 tons of steel, and under c50 cubic meters of concrete per MW.
https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
Have you ever seen a metal ore mine that can be built on heavy machines that run on batteries? Or a sand and gravel pit running on biofuel? Or a non diesel transport fleet to supply smelters? Or deliver steel to building sites? Or infrastructure building sites with battery vehicles and cranes? Or road building machines with a battery charger nearby for the battery fleet of tarmacadam laying vehicles? Or a farm that grows biofuel crops that runs on battery tractors? Or a cement or nitrogen fertilizer making process that doesn’t need fossil fuels?
Etc., etc… Hopefully you get the picture.
Steel (and some other industrial processes cement nitrogen fertilizers) can be made at a laboratory / demonstration i.e. microscopic scales, without burning fuels directly, but such processes do NOT scale. Further such demonstrations are ENTIRELY dependant on surrounding infrastructure – all built with fossil fuels – to even exist at all! Earlier in this thread a steel making process was cited, which I showed how and why it can’t scale (with references) here:
#post-87950 – Natasha: August 31, 2022 at 19:55
If such process could scale, then why aren’t the billionaire bankster investor class pumping their spread sheet numbers (that’s all money is) to build industrial scale machines, processes and supply chains that DON”T use fossil fuels? It doesn’t matter how BIG your spread sheet numbers are if the real world can’t supply the real materials, processes, land, and food and water to feed the human labour needed.
In other words: please stop ignoring EXTERNALITIES.
In yet more other words: because the laws of thermodynamics dictate…
@glenn_nl, continues to side step these externalities, first by acknowledging that “the population certainly does need to decline considerably in order to be sustainable” but then suggests “A one or zero child policy, encouraged strongly through the tax system, would go a long way to achieving” such sustainable global numbers of humans. Eh?
The thermodynamic facts of fossil fuel depletion ON ITS OWN dictates there will be less than a quarter of the current 8 billion by end of century no matter what we do politically! Such birth rate tinkering is at best irrelevant, especially given the poorest globally, say half the population, are almost entirely outside of any tax systems, have no access to contraception, or means to support themselves and their communities here, today, now, without having as more than 1 child to look after themselves whilst they get old and die off.
I’m not “proposing a mass cull of the population” with whatever political policy flavour of the day. I’m simply stating thermodynamics or nature as you put it, will negate any and ALL political posturing that conflicts with its dictates, which is for certain that 8 billion humans face “a mass cull of the population” to under 2 billion by end of this century at the latest.
Natasha, your point about industry’s needs for fossil fuels is very strong; this is a MAJOR problem.
However, your point about population contains inaccuracies, and overlooks a major issue. It is true that globally the majority live in less developed economies, but these economies are also less industrialised, and where they are industrialised it is primarily for exports, to gain first-world currency and to pay back interest to first-world banks. So their dependence on fossil fuels is much lower, and would be lower still without those ‘debts’.
Clark, Fossil fuel depletion is the architecture inside of which ALL the other “set[s] of interlocking problems, most of which affect several of the others” reside, whilst playing out their various scenarios. Literally EVERYTHING we do and consume and own in the modern world would vanish without fossil fuels.
To demote Fossil fuel depletion as “merely one aspect” amongst all the others is, IMHO* a MASSIVE mistake. Practically none of the other “set[s] of interlocking problems” would exist without fossil fuels.
(Also, this is not the place to advertise our CV’s by writing: “I think I have looked more deeply into humanity’s crisis than you have” (i.e. you wish to invoke the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy), so I decline your offer to parade mine here, beyond its relevance to this specific forum topic.
* In My Humble OpinionNatasha, to link to a comment internal to this site, you have to copy your chosen link, type a title for it in your post, highlight the title, click the ‘LINK’ button above the comment field, and paste the link into the dialogue. The way the forum software handles links is a pain.
Natasha, I have no wish to parade. I’m asking you to investigate more widely to expedite the conversation (after all, time is limited!), and so that I don’t have to keep contradicting you.
For instance, fossil fuel depletion would ultimately limit emissions, obviously, but if you check the figures you will find that climate change would become utterly catastrophic before then. Also, most of those emission would have dissolved into the oceans, acidifying them to the point that the ocean food chain would have collapsed, impacting oxygen production.
It is also true that conventional oil production has peaked. But as you might guess from thermodynamics, there is far more low-grade fossil fuel (tar sands, shale oil etc.) than the high-grade stuff that humanity has already more than half burned. It is already economically viable to extract and refine this sludge.
As the quality and EROEI of extracted fuels fall, their emissions per unit energy increase.
See? They’re all interlocked. And they almost always make each other worse.
Clarke, You are correct re: poorer less industrialised economies using less fossil fuels indigenously and that their exports earn currency to pay interest increases their fossil fuel consumption. But this is still just some wiggles inside one corner of the grand architecture of the primacy of whole-planet fossil fuel depletion.
And thanks re: how to get links to work 🙂
As a rule, the lower the quality of something the more of it there is. This is again an implication of thermodynamics.
– “…the lower the quality of something the more of it there is.”
This goes for ideas and discussion too 🙁
Well probably I do have a wish to parade; we are all stuck with having an ego. But fuck, I wish I was wrong more often!
Musical interlude:
All That Matters Is The Moments by The Comet is Coming, the ‘comet’ being metaphorical for global disaster, of course.
The comet is coming, Babylon burned down,
Our time has gone, our clock has run down.
The Arctic has cracked, the mountain is popped,
The river is ripped, the air is churning,
Skyscrapers falling like volume turned down.
I see all, from the cliff side, by the ring side,
From the front seat view of the rip tide.
I, this man, me, this matchstick,
Understand the futility of our antics,
How pointless, the decimals, the zeros of my fabric,
My trainers, my fabric, my designer casket.Natasha, I am more hopeful than you, but in some ways the hope is the worst thing of all, because it provokes frustration.
Being past global peak births brings me hope. The poorer people of the world bring me hope because they get by with so much less fossil fuel, and thus with much lower emissions. I don’t know what Earth’s carrying capacity could be, if everyone were to economise, share, reuse, localise etc. I see that there are massive savings that could be made, but I also know Earth’s carrying capacity falls as extractivism, industry and industrialised agriculture degrade the biosphere.
If only the media would Tell the Truth.
If only people would Act Now.
If only people would recognise the emergency and change!Clark, If it is “already economically viable to extract and refine this sludge” i.e. tight oil & tar sands oil, then please post links to references that support this hypothesis?
According to many researchers and writers (e.g. Gail Tverberg and e.g. her writings exchanges with prof. Charles Hall the originator of ‘Energy Returned On (energy) Investments'(EROI) modelling) the “sludge” will largely remain in the ground as it is far too inefficient to extract.
Our Finite World (blog): Energy Return on Energy Invested – Prof. Charles Hall’s Comments – by Gail Tverberg (12 Apr 2018)
——— Why No Politician Is Willing to Tell Us the Real Energy Story – by Gail Tverberg (23 Aug 2022)
Alice Friedemann has written extensively about the problems associated with the very low EROEI of tight oil & tar sands oil, with lots of references.
Why Canadian oilsands will not help solve the energy crisis – by energyskeptic (16 July 2022)
from Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge (blog) – oilsands indexOil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost as Much Energy as It Produces. The average “energy returned on investment,” or EROI, for conventional oil was roughly 25:1 (in 2013 significantly lower now in 2022). In other words, 25 units of oil-based energy are obtained for every one unit of other energy that is invested to extract it. But tar sands oil is in a category all its own. Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1 (in 2013, and again certainly not higher now in 2022). Prof. Charles Hall thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands’ full life cycle—including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs—was taken into account (i.e. the externalities I keep writing here about).
In 2013 (significantly lower now in 2022) most unconventional energy sources have much lower efficiencies than conventional gas and oil, which operate at a combined energy-returned-on-investment ratio of about 18:1. Shale gas, for example, performs at about 6.5:1 to 7.6:1—a bit better than the 2.9:1 to 5.1 for tar sands oil. Corn ethanol, with an EROI of about 1.3:1, sits at the bottom of the barrel for investment pay off.
Oil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost as Much Energy as It Produces – by Rachel Nuwer (Inside Climate News, 19 Feb 2013)
Of all the major fossil fuel types being commercially extracted today, Tar Sands have the lowest EROEI. They are essentially bitumen that once it is carved out of the earth still needs to be heated, softened, washed of stone and sand and then pumped as still nasty, gritty sludge through high pressure pipes to get to a refinery that can cook and separate it enough to begin to use. EVERY bit of the fuel used in getting Tar Sands extracted and softened and pumped first required burning additional FOSSIL fuel pushing more CO2 into the atmosphere … before the net refined fuel from the Tar Sands is itself burned in a car or other device – which adds the rest of the carbon into the air as CO2. It is a dirty, process that multiplies the amount of CO2 released – just to access the energy at the last step. That is why Tar Sands are the dirtiest, most CO2 polluting, aquifer and land threatening fossil fuels on the planet.
TAR SANDS – the worst of possible fuels – Rudy Sovinees (One World, Our World blog, 3 Dec 2014 – updated 16 Apr 2018)
Plus tight oil & Tar sands are the dirtiest most land intensive and long term polluting of all fossil fuel extraction methods.
Duck Duck Go: Oil Sands (images)
—
[ Mod: Natasha, your thoroughness in providing links is welcome, but kindly avoid posting so many bare URLs – the links in this post took quite a while to tidy up. In future, please hyperlink the title using the method outlined (and rehearsed) above, providing detail of the source, author and date on the same line.Thank you. ]
On the Cobbles, the last song ever recorded by John Martyn in 2003 – Goodnight Irene! Enjoy 🙂
John Martyn – Goodnight Irene (Official Visualizer) – jazz track (5 Aug 2021) – YouTube, 4m 12s
Natasha, 12:46, #88506
– “I decline your offer to parade mine here…”
On the contrary, a summary of your experience would be helpful. Myself and other commenters would then know your specific expertise, and what sort of specialist subjects it would be productive to ask you about.
I’m a technology generalist. I was unusually good at classical physics at school. I dislike having to treat everyday technology as magic, so I have learned the principles of everything from bicycles, steam engines, and cathode ray tube televisions to optical discs, computers and software. I program from machine level upwards, I particularly enjoy writing efficient simulations of simple physical systems. I repair anything that’s still large enough to handle; repairs are what I do most. I’ve done a lot of theatre and live music tech, improvising solutions in festival fields, often building equipment myself from junk.
– “…please post links to references that support this hypothesis?”
I should have written “becoming marginally economically viable”. It’s getting done a bit, as is fracking. Of course, the whole system grinds to a halt without fossil fuels, so as conventional fuels deplete, so more and more money will be diverted towards extracting poorer and poorer grades.
Depletion is less like hitting a wall than trying to traverse a swamp by entering it as fast as possible; let’s see how far we can get?
Take a look at “tight oil”, the graphic 80% of the way down this page:
https://richardheinberg.com/museletter-346-the-end-of-growth-ten-years-after
Judging from the scale, that’s over 3000 square miles.
A documentary film: Smoke, Oil and Mirrors.
Some authors: Richard Heinberg (english), Pablo Servigne (french and some translations), Antonio Turiel (spanish only?).
One key word: degrowth.
“On the contrary, a summary of your experience would be helpful.”
In fairness to Natasha, she did say about herself August 22, 2022 at 14:32:
“PS please excuse my inclusion of this ‘authority’ logical fallacy but as a retired industrial electro magnetics designer / physics / maths / 3D design practitioner project manager and teacher, I have some experience in ‘whole-system’ analysis.”
For myself, I’m going to reread the whole thread because there is a lot of information I need to digest and think over.
Natasha, thanks for Goodnight Irene. Hammond organ; wonderful electromagnetic instrument.
Oscar, I’m downloading Smoke, Oil and Mirrors for later. The chances of the 9/11 attacks and the “War on Terror” not being to a large extent about oil strike me as very low. The turn of the millennium had just passed, there was at last a sense that humanity should be looking to the future and considering our place in reality and our impact upon the environment, and suddenly the old order of conflict and ‘security’ reasserted itself in an almost unbelievably dramatic way.
ET, thanks for pointing out Natasha’s earlier comment which I had missed.
THANKS again Craig Murray for hosting this valuable forum space, your Moderators for kindly mopping up my poor link habits, and to all participating 🙂
Clark, I too would describe myself as a technology generalist and am a BIG music lover too – we have much in common! Yes the Hammond Organ is such an amazingly expressive sounding instrument – check out the second track in this mix I did earlier In The Morning – Nora Jones
Natasha,
‘Prisss’ – as in Bladerunner maybe?
I’m a bit too busy to keep up with discussion at present, but I can listen to some music while I get on with other things. I’m enjoying the first track, so thanks.
Oscar,
last night I watched the first part of the documentary you linked. I agree with the vast majority of it, but it contains a couple of glaring bloopers. We should probably discuss those on my old “What is conspiracy theory?” thread, as they’d be off-topic here.
I am afraid you are deluded about Renewable Energy.
Fossil fuels are needed to make aluminum and steel and cement which uses limestone that is calcified.
Solar Panel Production. Coking Coal (Metallurgical Coal) is combined with Sand to produce Silicon that makes the wafer for the photo voltaic cell.
All the materials are mined and processed to make the RE products.Sunface Jack, sorry; who is “deluded about Renewable Energy”, and in what way? There have been a variety of opinions on this thread. Maybe you should cite and quote, or just state what you think the limits are.
Natasha, sorry not to have posted here for a bit; I still have a few of your links to look over.
Fossil fuel availability has just declined due to someone blowing up pipelines. It was already looking unlikely that the UK could keep the lights on this winter (link); must be even worse now.
– COLUMN: Every week, the people who trade electricity in the UK get to quiz the managers of the national grid. Listening to them is getting scarier by the week — and suggests keeping the lights on will be more challenging than politicians admit.
-— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) August 26, 2022
Bloomberg: Listening to European Electricity Traders Is Very, Very Scary
I wish I had some solar panels; even just enough to charge a ‘phone is far better than none.
– – – – – – – – – – –Sunface Jack, have you heard of perovskite solar cells? Much cheaper, fast and easy to produce, considerably more efficient but around a quarter as durable and not yet produced at large scales.
I would like to introduce in this thread the concept of collapsology. Here you have one of its greatest exponents in Europe, specifically in France, speaking about a future without oil.
We also have an article from a minister from my country, he is a dangerous communist, be careful: The limitsi to growth: eco-socialism or barbarism. This article makes it clear that there is a risk of ecofascism.
Once we have accepted the possibility of a societal collapse, it is worth asking whether the Transnational Capitalist Class is aware of the problem or not. Clearly some groups are not, and have techno-optimistic and “transhumanist” wet dreams. Instead, it seems unlikely that the largest think tanks and public and private intelligence services, with their regular work on global risks, are unaware of the problem.
This is where it seems pertinent to recommend an article and a book fresh from the oven: Survival of the Richest by Douglas Rushkoff.
Also, recently one of the leading experts in Spain on degrowth —along with Antonio Turiel— has published a book on the subject and possible scenarios in the short and medium term. Unfortunately it is only available in Spanish.
I currently maintain —and many academics too— that there is a war between elites in the face of the imminent scenario of collapse —in reality it is several collapses and a chain reaction. On one side are the national-populist elites. On the other, the “globalists”. And both have declared war on each other and at the same time, they have silently declared war on us, the people.
The disproportionate legal and political measures in relation to existing dangers suppose a proactive anticipation to dismantle any popular revolt. This has been happening since 2001, from which time we have been experiencing a quasi-permanent juridical-legal exceptional state. That fact deposits most of the power in the Executive(s). An author: Giorgio Agamben.
I suspect that the covidian event was buying time. And the current state of war
as a result of NATO actions, together with Spain’s change of position in relation to the Sahara (goodbye gas from Algeria), and the blowing up of the Baltic gas pipelines, all this is a controlled demolition of what that was already destined to fall.Purpose? Authoritarian, controlled and forced degrowth.
At the same time, there is a scapegoat, as Richard Heinberg already said in the documentary Oil, Smoke and Mirrors more than 10 years ago.
What will we do?
