What Would Happen If the World Ran Out of Crude Oil?

(edited)

On 4/9/2019 at 6:48 PM, Enthalpic said:

STEM education in the USA is weak and is getting worse.  Even more frightening is this rise in anti-intellectualism where the university educated are being blamed for problems and ridiculous conspiracy theories are running rampant.

Both a coal miner and a physician have a vote, doesn't mean we should necessarily listen to them equally.

Well, its not STEM educated that are the problem now is it?  Those being blamed are the idiot social studies dimwits and marketing blowhards who got a 4.0 by just attending class and never doing any outside class studying.  All on the tax payers dime with "loans"(gifts) for the stupid and lazy so they could party and then Bitch that they could not get a job out of college and now are paying off said STUPID debt on a barristas salary!

EDIT: As for what happens when oil runs out... Entire world will look like Venezuela, DRC, and India.  Enjoy

Edited by Wastral
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 4/10/2019 at 9:14 AM, specinho said:

Regarding oil from algae......... pardon me......... not sure if this info is true but.........

Related image

 

 

Who the Hell needs algae?  Just vacuum up the Hydrates off the bottom of the ocean at around 2000m depth. Algae will never happen. Natural Gas is 100% renewable. 

Edited by Wastral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very Interesting take on recycling certain plastics:

'Molecular scissors' for plastic waste

"In 2016, a group of Japanese researchers has discovered a bacterium that grows on PET and partially feeds on it. They found out that his bacterium possesses two special enzymes, PETase and MHETase, which are able to digest PET plastic polymers. PETase breaks down the plastic into smaller PET building blocks, primarily MHET, and MHETase splits this into the two basic precursor building blocks of PET, terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. Both components are very valuable for synthesising new PET without the addition of crude oil -- for a closed sustainable production and recovery cycle."

 

"Producing these kinds of enzymes in closed biotechnological cycles, for example, could be a way to really break down PET plastics and other polymers into their basic building blocks. This would also be the key to ideal recycling and a long-term solution to the plastic waste problem: production of plastic would be a closed cycle and no longer dependent on crude oil."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190412085241.htm

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

Well, its not STEM educated that are the problem now is it?  Those being blamed are the idiot social studies dimwits and marketing blowhards who got a 4.0 by just attending class and never doing any outside class studying.  All on the tax payers dime with "loans"(gifts) for the stupid and lazy so they could party and then Bitch that they could not get a job out of college and now are paying off said STUPID debt on a barristas salary!

EDIT: As for what happens when oil runs out... Entire world will look like Venezuela, DRC, and India.  Enjoy

They are not the problem, of course, if anything we need far more.  However, anti-science morons are on the rise as well (anti-vaccination, flat earth, climate change deniers, etc.)  People who have essentially no education think their opinion on any topic is just as valid as top experts with trump as their role model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

They are not the problem, of course, if anything we need far more.  However, anti-science morons are on the rise as well (anti-vaccination, flat earth, climate change deniers, etc.)  People who have essentially no education think their opinion on any topic is just as valid as top experts with trump as their role model.

We have reasons to be ant-science moron-posite (opposite of moron)............ First of all........... with the top intelligence and experts are flocking to science like algae oil........ we have reasons to believe common outsiders' short sighted opinion raising questions about the functionality of it is not ignorant at all........... but common sense....... that might be lacking in many if not most grant driven- facts blinded scientific communities and experts... could be an endangered valuable asset.

Secondly......... observations about climate change; drop of fishery yields; change of water quality (if not mistaken) were mostly reported by the non-educated or may be jobless group (including the in--transitions; housewives and retiress)...... (it's part of their daily life to come into contact with nature and natural resources)................ While the scientists  and experts have been busied catching wind in comfortable air-conditioned offices arguing if the changes are real; WHY are they real and WHY are they NOT real; WHAT is the theory behind each phenomenon etc etc..........

Thirdly........ While the educated and top experts are cracking their heads considering "to be" or "not to be" the lowly educated or no formal educationists who like to sit idlingly at coffee shops are already providing practical solutions or opinions on how a country should be administered and how budget could be better spent over a cup of 80cents coffee and two slices of toast...... A great nation (in size of populaton) chose a farmer trained officer to be their head of  country; a few other backward countries chose not the experts but sandal wearing candidates who usually look not so well educated but with common sense to rule their countries............

Time is changing..............   So are the criteria we consider a role model............ It's probably time we revisit old wisdom handed down by elder generations and be open-minded about the usefulness of some lowly forms of non educated or poor that we so despise of..........

Experience and overall capability ought to be able to superceed certificate qualification alone .......... papers........... useful or useless.......... that we so weighted towards...........

Edited by specinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meredith Poor: You say that countries need to stop building highrises to increase birth rates. I say if that is true, then build more. The world is overpopulated now and it won't be long with the stupidity of governments that we will face a global food shortage. The result of that will many people starving to death, increase in crime. Our descendants are facing a bleak future, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, specinho said:

We have reasons to be ant-science moron-posite (opposite of moron)............ First of all........... with the top intelligence and experts are flocking to science like algae oil........ we have reasons to believe common outsiders' short sighted opinion raising questions about the functionality of it is not ignorant at all........... but common sense....... that might be lacking in many if not most grant driven- facts blinded scientific communities and experts... could be an endangered valuable asset.

Secondly......... observations about climate change; drop of fishery yields; change of water quality (if not mistaken) were mostly reported by the non-educated or may be jobless group (including the in--transitions; housewives and retiress)...... (it's part of their daily life to come into contact with nature and natural resources)................ While the scientists  and experts have been busied catching wind in comfortable air-conditioned offices arguing if the changes are real; WHY are they real and WHY are they NOT real; WHAT is the theory behind each phenomenon etc etc..........

Thirdly........ While the educated and top experts are cracking their heads considering "to be" or "not to be" the lowly educated or no formal educationists who like to sit idlingly at coffee shops are already providing practical solutions or opinions on how a country should be administered and how budget could be better spent over a cup of 80cents coffee and two slices of toast...... A great nation (in size of populaton) chose a farmer trained officer to be their head of  country; a few other backward countries chose not the experts but sandal wearing candidates who usually look not so well educated but with common sense to rule their countries............

Time is changing..............   So are the criteria we consider a role model............ It's probably time we revisit old wisdom handed down by elder generations and be open-minded about the usefulness of some lowly forms of non educated or poor that we so despise of..........

Experience and overall capability ought to be able to superceed certificate qualification alone .......... papers........... useful or useless.......... that we so weighted towards...........

Yes, the scientists screwed up when it came to the collapse of the cod fishery and should have listened to the fishermen more (I dated a Newfoundlander chick for a while and blamed the fishermen, and lets just say I got a history lesson). :)

That said local experience isn't going to teach someone how to design a computer chip, or nano particles, or maybe even genetically modified algae. when you are dying you will want doctors and pharmacists.

Fundamental science doesn't always quickly yield valuable inventions but in the long term tends to pay off enormously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

They are not the problem, of course, if anything we need far more.  However, anti-science morons are on the rise as well (anti-vaccination, flat earth, climate change deniers, etc.)  People who have essentially no education think their opinion on any topic is just as valid as top experts with trump as their role model.

Yes, need more STEM, as for

1) anti vaccers... yea, but doesn't matter if the disease has been wiped out.  Spend your energy like Bill Gates actually irradiating the last vestiges of these diseases in the 3rd world, then come and talk.  Where is your fear mongering over the black plague lack of vaccine?

2) flat earthers are a self delusion made up mob of hard core atheists who invented them in the early 1900's  No one in the history of the world has ever though the earth was flat.  That has been a convenient lie peddled by very recent atheists after Scopes trial in 1925.  Nothing quite like a lie told loudly enough times with gutless cowards taking over the school system to back the lie by the simple expedient of never teaching history; to get the lie to stick.

3) Climate change... conveniently changed from Anthropogentic global warming because... earth wasn't warming

3a) 1/2 of all CO2 emitted by man created after the scare started yet temps were not rising in thermometer data, only in the "models".  Conveniently changed to climate change as it means anything & everything.  No one is denying climate changes.  Everyone with a rational brain denies the frauds at NASA etc whose GIGO "models"(AKA, not science) have been so woefully WRONG, the temps are way below the error bars, even when they are inputting NON RAW data.  Why?  Multiple obvious things which requires science but which were ignored and many are still ignored.  Yet, lying scum call the "deniers" anti science.... right.  One group is lying scum, that is for sure and not following the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

3b) The so called "experts", whom you claim to follow, have been caught multiple times fraudulently modifying the data that goes into their models because they hold all the power and can't get fired.  So, who do you believe?  Acknowledged FRAUDULENT pieces of Shit like Hansen, or same climate PHD scientists in the field who have called them FRAUDS from the beginning or who at MINIMUM have admitted, no we do not have a cloud model, or a CO2 sequestration model of the ocean and are skeptical?  .... Yea, I'll take category 2, those who aren't lying FRAUDS who claim they know with certainty about crap that NO ONE knew ANYTHING about 5 seconds ago and who have been caught multiple times FRAUDULENTLY changing data.

3c) With the correlation fact that USCRN data(rural, nowhere near a city) shows DECREASING daily highs and DECREASING daily LOWS and so does Satellite Data for the last 20 years.  Why does it matter?  Because nowhere on the globe outside of the USA, Germany, and E. Australia do we have recorded temperatures before 1940.   We have a couple point sources, but nothing over a wide area.  Russia joined the party in the early cold war and because of the space race, and we still had no coverage out of the northern hemisphere & Ozzieland until the 80's. 

4) Want another Blatant, in-your-face lie peddled by IPCC and Hansen which moron ignorant public has swilled up?  Arctic Sea Ice... We have data, satellite data going back to the early 70's with FULL coverage, Max/Min, and intermittent photo data in the 60's, yet when do the FRAUD lying pieces of garbage at IPCC etc start?  Max Arctic ice extent in 1978 of course...   Ah, nice convenient statistic LIE, ah lovely.  

4a) With the addendum ignoring the fact that boats were SAILING through the Northwest PASSAGE in 1906!~!!!!!#$#$#@$#$#$$%@!#!##$, but NO ONE could get through until late 20th century!!!!!! 

WHO are the frauds again?  They are the: anti SCIENTIFIC METHOD, anti facts, global warmist scare mongers like YOU! 

Look in the mirror. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 7:38 PM, Oil Dude said:

When peak demand is reached ( at somewhere between 100 and 125 million bbls per day?) the left wing press, most of which are quite poor in math, will declare it's over, without realizing we still need to come up with over 100 million bbls per day, in the presence of a huge decline rate in the US shale business. I don't think peak demand is a scary thought at all. We'll have a fun enough time to replace declining reserves. 

You do not need 100 million barrels of oil worth of energy to be replaced by alternatives. This assumption alone shows that it is the right wing math that is faulty or just simply uninformed. EVs need only about 1/5th of the barrels for similar capabilities. This is clearly displayed in their miles per gallon ratings at close to or even over 130mpg compared to the average of ICEV fleet rating of about 24mpg in the US. So whatever the consumption is for light vehicle transportation, divide that by 4-5 and you'll get the amount of barrels equivalent in terms of energy to be provided for an EV fleet.

Additionally, heat pumps produce 3x or even 4x the heat energy from 1 unit of input energy while fossil fuels are not even 100% efficient. That suggests 1/5th or even less energy required compared to fossil fuels being burned for heating directly. Transportation and heating are already a good portion of fossil fuel demand. The assumption that an alternative energy system needs to provide the same amount of energy as we currently consume in terms of barrels of oil, is completely and utterly false. We probably need 1/3rd or even 1/5th the energy so about 33 million barrels per day or maybe even just 20 million bpd of oil equivalent.

In short, fossil fuel based technologies are grossly inefficient compared to 21st century alternative technologies.

Edited by David Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, David Jones said:

You do not need 100 million barrels of oil worth of energy to be replaced by alternatives. This assumption alone shows that it is the right wing math that is faulty or just simply uninformed. EVs need only about 1/5th of the barrels for similar capabilities. This is clearly displayed in their miles per gallon ratings at close to or even over 130mpg compared to the average of ICEV fleet rating of about 24mpg in the US. So whatever the consumption is for light vehicle transportation, divide that by 4-5 and you'll get the amount of barrels equivalent in terms of energy to be provided for an EV fleet.

Additionally, heat pumps produce 3x or even 4x the heat energy from 1 unit of input energy while fossil fuels are not even 100% efficient. That suggests 1/5th or even less energy required compared to fossil fuels being burned for heating directly. Transportation and heating are already a good portion of fossil fuel demand. The assumption that an alternative energy system needs to provide the same amount of energy as we currently consume in terms of barrels of oil, is completely and utterly false. We probably need 1/3rd or even 1/5th the energy so about 33 million barrels per day or maybe even just 20 million bpd of oil equivalent.

In short, fossil fuel based technologies are grossly inefficient compared to 21st century alternative technologies.

Uh, try actual math, not ebike math.  Tesla 3 uses about 0.3KWh/mile.  A van?  Probably about 0.5KWH.  1 gallon of gas = 36.6KWH.  Now subtract for ICE efficiency = 0.3 = 12.2KWH = 24--30 miles. 

Same oil, for electrical efficiency is 0.9 for battery and 0.97= 0.87 for transmission, then drive efficiency (0.9) = 0.78

36.6*0.78/0.3 = ~100miles/gallon equivalent for a SMALL car, or 50Miles/gallon equivalent for a large car.  You will note that most claim worse than this due to my overly conservative efficiencies.  Actual gains is about 2X-->3X.  Not your 4X-->5X.

and if you have house batteries in between with an inverter both ways is 0.9*0.9 = 0.81 = 81 miles/gallon equivalent and a larger car 40MPG.  So, 2X gain in efficiency.

As for residential/business heating, majority are HVAC already and most are converting ASAP where the majority of NG is used for H2O heating which is ~3% of energy needs.  Never understood why this did not become standard in the 1950's with the advent of R12 and R22.  It is even more efficient if you paint your collector black and place in the sun obtaining COP's of greater than 5.  But for some stupid reason, you do not see them on roofs, because people would rather super snazy snootsville than have cheap house to live in. 

Of course plastics, fertilzer, trucks, trains(possible to electrify), ships, airplanes all are utterly unable to be electrified.  We already turn 45% of our corn crop able to feed a Billion people into Ethanol providing a mere 5% of our car transportation needs which becomes about 3% of actual.   The above is 1/3-->1/2 of all oil/NG used and many things like Iron, Aluminum etc whose current efficiencies go into the crapper if you try to use electricity which means you have to have a carbon source and collect it which is MASSIVELY inefficient.

PS: We will just vacuum up the Methane hydrates off the continental shelves is the actual answer. 

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wastral said:

 Of course plastics, fertilzer, trucks, trains(possible to electrify), ships, airplanes all are utterly unable to be electrified. 

Valid points, but I'd point out that electrification isn't an all-or-nothing endeavor.  Long haul trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are, at the moment, prohibitively expensive to electrify - but the short haul applications will probably electrify faster than consumer automobiles.  Then there's hybridization.  In a variety of commercial applications, hybrids can cut fuel consumption 50%. 

Trucks:  Tesla is gunning for electric class-8 trucks because they know it's a fantastic use case.  IIRC, it was estimated that the 500 mile range on the Tesla Semi could service 70% of class-8 truck routes.  Meanwhile, everything that services a known route and returns to a depot (buses, trash trucks, etc) is being electrified as fast as possible.

Ships: Anything that operates at a single location - such as ferries & tugboats - will go hybrid ASAP and possibly full-electric in the future. 

Airplanes: industry is already working on electrifying short-haul aircraft.  

Trains: many are already electric.  Batteries could open more routes to electrification.   

 

There's also future technology to consider.  Ten years ago, everyone thought Musk was crazy for pursuing mass-produced electric vehicles.  Today, everyone is following his lead.  It's hard to say what will be possible in another ten years. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2019 at 4:00 AM, Enthalpic said:

Yes, the scientists screwed up when it came to the collapse of the cod fishery and should have listened to the fishermen more (I dated a Newfoundlander chick for a while and blamed the fishermen, and lets just say I got a history lesson). :)

That said local experience isn't going to teach someone how to design a computer chip, or nano particles, or maybe even genetically modified algae. when you are dying you will want doctors and pharmacists.

Fundamental science doesn't always quickly yield valuable inventions but in the long term tends to pay off enormously.

May be the focus might not be "if the fundamental science is important" but "if the methodology could yield functional results"??

Would it be more productive if they use larger algae instead?? I was told by a friend the proposal was rejected............. and they yielded no result for a long time for insisting on using  the tiny organism....

 

On 4/15/2019 at 8:35 AM, Wastral said:

Yes, need more STEM, as for

1) anti vaccers... yea, but doesn't matter if the disease has been wiped out.  Spend your energy like Bill Gates actually irradiating the last vestiges of these diseases in the 3rd world, then come and talk.  Where is your fear mongering over the black plague lack of vaccine?

 

regarding the vaccine...... there is a new kind of vaccine development:

image.png.d1f8086b1e4d2d0b5c5412b0d1c15d5c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.llnl.gov/news/us-energy-use-rises-highest-level-ever

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ THIS CHART... AND I DO... IT COULD TELL YOU WHY BIG OIL AND BIG COAL AND THEIR REPUBLICAN PUPPETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS... ARE SO EXTREMELY TERRIFIED OF THE GREEN ENERGY REVOLUTION!!!   LOOK AT HOW EXTREMELY WASTEFUL OUR ENERGY SYSTEM IS... RIGHT AT 2 OUT OF EVERY 3 UNITS OF ENERGY PUT INTO THE SYSTEM... GOES IMMEDIATELY TO WASTE... MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF BURNED UP FOSSIL FUELS AND THE CO2 THAT THAT EMITS!!!  MOST OF THAT WASTE COMES FROM TRANSPORTATION... AND MOST ESPECIALLY FROM THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY.  NOW... LOOK AT THE INPUTS FROM SOLAR, HYDRO, AND WIND.  COMBINED... THOSE INPUTS ARE ONLY ABOUT 7% OF TOTAL ALL INPUTS... BUT... THEY REPRESENT MORE THAN HALF OF ALL THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED IN THE USA... BECAUSE LITTLE OF THOSE GREEN ENERGY INPUTS GO INSTANTLY TO WASTE!!!  THOSE SOLAR WIND AND HYDRO INPUTS ARE SMALL... RELATIVE TO THE MASSIVE INPUTS OF NUCLEAR, COAL, AND NATURAL GAS INPUTS... BUT... MOST OF THOSE INPUTS OF COAL, NATURAL GAS AND NUCLEAR GO IMMEDIATELY TO WASTE... THUS THEIR NET INPUT IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE NET INPUTS FROM WIND, SOLAR, AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER!!!   ALL OF WHICH MEANS THAT ADDING 1 QUAD OF SOLAR AND WIND AND HYDRO INPUTS... OFFSETS THE NEED FOR 3 QUADS OF FOSSIL FUEL OR NUCLEAR INPUTS!!!  IF WE SIMPLY KEEP ADDING MORE AND MORE HYDRO AND SOLAR AND WIND POWER, WE DRAMATICALLY REDUCE OUR NEED FOR COAL AND NUCLEAR AND EVEN NATURAL GAS FOR ELECTRICITY GENERATION... EVENTUALLY... TO ALMOST ZERO!!!  AND WE COULD DO THAT IN JUST A COUPLE OF DECADES... AT CURRENT RATES OF GROWTH OF THOSE INDUSTRIES!!! 

AS FOR TRANSPORTATION... MUCH OF THAT WASTE COULD BE ELIMINATED... ALONG WITH THE MASSIVE CO2 PRODUCTION THAT IT LEADS TO... SIMPLY BY GETTING MORE AND MORE TRANSPORTATION ENERGY FROM WIND AND SOLAR... AND HYDRO!!!  ALL OF WHICH EXPLAINS WHY MANY GIANT OIL COMPANIES... ARE SPENDING HEAVILY ON WIND AND SOLAR.... AND WHY DONALD TRUMP'S ANTI GREEN NEW DEAL STANCE... IS THE MARK OF A TOTAL IDIOT WHO IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LOUD MOUTH PUPPET OF THE FAR RIGHT... WHICH MAKES MOST OF ITS REVENUE FROM THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF FOSSIL FUELS... ALL OF WHICH ARE BEING STOLEN FROM WE AMERICANS... AND FROM BILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD!!!   UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, AND YOU WILL SEE CLEARLY WHY THE CONSERVATIVE VISON OF OUR FUTURE WILL DESTROY OUR NATION AND PLANET... AND WHY THE LIBERAL NEW GREEN VISION IS OUR ONLY HOPE FOR SURVIVAL... BECAUSE... NEVER MIND GLOBAL WARMING... OUR FOSSIL FUEL ENDOWMENT IS FINITE... AND WE ARE USING IT UP... AND WASTING MOST OF IT... AT ENORMOUS RATES!!!  MOSTLY TO BENEFIT A FEW THOUSAND SUPER RICH RIGHT WING ULTRA CONSERVATIVE FASCIST AHOLES WHO DO NOT GIVE A RATS REAR END ABOUT ALL THE REST OF US!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2019 at 6:35 PM, Wastral said:

Yes, need more STEM, as for

1) anti vaccers... yea, but doesn't matter if the disease has been wiped out.  Spend your energy like Bill Gates actually irradiating the last vestiges of these diseases in the 3rd world, then come and talk.  Where is your fear mongering over the black plague lack of vaccine?

2) flat earthers are a self delusion made up mob of hard core atheists who invented them in the early 1900's  No one in the history of the world has ever though the earth was flat.  That has been a convenient lie peddled by very recent atheists after Scopes trial in 1925.  Nothing quite like a lie told loudly enough times with gutless cowards taking over the school system to back the lie by the simple expedient of never teaching history; to get the lie to stick.

3) Climate change... conveniently changed from Anthropogentic global warming because... earth wasn't warming

3a) 1/2 of all CO2 emitted by man created after the scare started yet temps were not rising in thermometer data, only in the "models".  Conveniently changed to climate change as it means anything & everything.  No one is denying climate changes.  Everyone with a rational brain denies the frauds at NASA etc whose GIGO "models"(AKA, not science) have been so woefully WRONG, the temps are way below the error bars, even when they are inputting NON RAW data.  Why?  Multiple obvious things which requires science but which were ignored and many are still ignored.  Yet, lying scum call the "deniers" anti science.... right.  One group is lying scum, that is for sure and not following the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

3b) The so called "experts", whom you claim to follow, have been caught multiple times fraudulently modifying the data that goes into their models because they hold all the power and can't get fired.  So, who do you believe?  Acknowledged FRAUDULENT pieces of Shit like Hansen, or same climate PHD scientists in the field who have called them FRAUDS from the beginning or who at MINIMUM have admitted, no we do not have a cloud model, or a CO2 sequestration model of the ocean and are skeptical?  .... Yea, I'll take category 2, those who aren't lying FRAUDS who claim they know with certainty about crap that NO ONE knew ANYTHING about 5 seconds ago and who have been caught multiple times FRAUDULENTLY changing data.

3c) With the correlation fact that USCRN data(rural, nowhere near a city) shows DECREASING daily highs and DECREASING daily LOWS and so does Satellite Data for the last 20 years.  Why does it matter?  Because nowhere on the globe outside of the USA, Germany, and E. Australia do we have recorded temperatures before 1940.   We have a couple point sources, but nothing over a wide area.  Russia joined the party in the early cold war and because of the space race, and we still had no coverage out of the northern hemisphere & Ozzieland until the 80's. 

4) Want another Blatant, in-your-face lie peddled by IPCC and Hansen which moron ignorant public has swilled up?  Arctic Sea Ice... We have data, satellite data going back to the early 70's with FULL coverage, Max/Min, and intermittent photo data in the 60's, yet when do the FRAUD lying pieces of garbage at IPCC etc start?  Max Arctic ice extent in 1978 of course...   Ah, nice convenient statistic LIE, ah lovely.  

4a) With the addendum ignoring the fact that boats were SAILING through the Northwest PASSAGE in 1906!~!!!!!#$#$#@$#$#$$%@!#!##$, but NO ONE could get through until late 20th century!!!!!! 

WHO are the frauds again?  They are the: anti SCIENTIFIC METHOD, anti facts, global warmist scare mongers like YOU! 

Look in the mirror. 

It certainly matters if the disease hasn't been completely wiped out (measles, pertussis).

Parts 3 and 4 of your post are a perfect example of conspiracy theories and anti-science. Yeah, all those scientists spanning across several universities and countries are all concealing the same lie (or manipulating data for no reason)... do you realize how unrealistic that is?  Like someone earlier said tenured professors can't easily be fired, so they have no vested interest in publishing lies - their salary is safe - and getting caught falsifying data as a scientist is career suicide (nobody will publish you after).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Dille said:

https://www.llnl.gov/news/us-energy-use-rises-highest-level-ever

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ THIS CHART... AND I DO... IT COULD TELL YOU WHY BIG OIL AND BIG COAL AND THEIR REPUBLICAN PUPPETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS... ARE SO EXTREMELY TERRIFIED OF THE GREEN ENERGY REVOLUTION!!!   LOOK AT HOW EXTREMELY WASTEFUL OUR ENERGY SYSTEM IS... RIGHT AT 2 OUT OF EVERY 3 UNITS OF ENERGY PUT INTO THE SYSTEM... GOES IMMEDIATELY TO WASTE... MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF BURNED UP FOSSIL FUELS AND THE CO2 THAT THAT EMITS!!!  MOST OF THAT WASTE COMES FROM TRANSPORTATION... AND MOST ESPECIALLY FROM THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY.  NOW... LOOK AT THE INPUTS FROM SOLAR, HYDRO, AND WIND.  COMBINED... THOSE INPUTS ARE ONLY ABOUT 7% OF TOTAL ALL INPUTS... BUT... THEY REPRESENT MORE THAN HALF OF ALL THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED IN THE USA... BECAUSE LITTLE OF THOSE GREEN ENERGY INPUTS GO INSTANTLY TO WASTE!!!  THOSE SOLAR WIND AND HYDRO INPUTS ARE SMALL... RELATIVE TO THE MASSIVE INPUTS OF NUCLEAR, COAL, AND NATURAL GAS INPUTS... BUT... MOST OF THOSE INPUTS OF COAL, NATURAL GAS AND NUCLEAR GO IMMEDIATELY TO WASTE... THUS THEIR NET INPUT IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE NET INPUTS FROM WIND, SOLAR, AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER!!!   ALL OF WHICH MEANS THAT ADDING 1 QUAD OF SOLAR AND WIND AND HYDRO INPUTS... OFFSETS THE NEED FOR 3 QUADS OF FOSSIL FUEL OR NUCLEAR INPUTS!!!  IF WE SIMPLY KEEP ADDING MORE AND MORE HYDRO AND SOLAR AND WIND POWER, WE DRAMATICALLY REDUCE OUR NEED FOR COAL AND NUCLEAR AND EVEN NATURAL GAS FOR ELECTRICITY GENERATION... EVENTUALLY... TO ALMOST ZERO!!!  AND WE COULD DO THAT IN JUST A COUPLE OF DECADES... AT CURRENT RATES OF GROWTH OF THOSE INDUSTRIES!!! 

AS FOR TRANSPORTATION... MUCH OF THAT WASTE COULD BE ELIMINATED... ALONG WITH THE MASSIVE CO2 PRODUCTION THAT IT LEADS TO... SIMPLY BY GETTING MORE AND MORE TRANSPORTATION ENERGY FROM WIND AND SOLAR... AND HYDRO!!!  ALL OF WHICH EXPLAINS WHY MANY GIANT OIL COMPANIES... ARE SPENDING HEAVILY ON WIND AND SOLAR.... AND WHY DONALD TRUMP'S ANTI GREEN NEW DEAL STANCE... IS THE MARK OF A TOTAL IDIOT WHO IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LOUD MOUTH PUPPET OF THE FAR RIGHT... WHICH MAKES MOST OF ITS REVENUE FROM THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF FOSSIL FUELS... ALL OF WHICH ARE BEING STOLEN FROM WE AMERICANS... AND FROM BILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD!!!   UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, AND YOU WILL SEE CLEARLY WHY THE CONSERVATIVE VISON OF OUR FUTURE WILL DESTROY OUR NATION AND PLANET... AND WHY THE LIBERAL NEW GREEN VISION IS OUR ONLY HOPE FOR SURVIVAL... BECAUSE... NEVER MIND GLOBAL WARMING... OUR FOSSIL FUEL ENDOWMENT IS FINITE... AND WE ARE USING IT UP... AND WASTING MOST OF IT... AT ENORMOUS RATES!!!  MOSTLY TO BENEFIT A FEW THOUSAND SUPER RICH RIGHT WING ULTRA CONSERVATIVE FASCIST AHOLES WHO DO NOT GIVE A RATS REAR END ABOUT ALL THE REST OF US!!! 

screaming, yelling and name calling does wonders!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, specinho said:

May be the focus might not be "if the fundamental science is important" but "if the methodology could yield functional results"??

Would it be more productive if they use larger algae instead?? I was told by a friend the proposal was rejected............. and they yielded no result for a long time for insisting on using  the tiny organism....

 

Smaller organisms have a higher surface area to volume ratio which improves chemical kinetics. It's not a problem unless you get too small - just have more of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio

As a chemist I kind of dislike that bioreactors work so well... but gene altered microbes can crap out fancy molecules way more efficiently than we can make then in a lab or a standard chemical plant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

22 hours ago, Wastral said:

Uh, try actual math, not ebike math.  Tesla 3 uses about 0.3KWh/mile.  A van?  Probably about 0.5KWH.  1 gallon of gas = 36.6KWH.  Now subtract for ICE efficiency = 0.3 = 12.2KWH = 24--30 miles. 

Same oil, for electrical efficiency is 0.9 for battery and 0.97= 0.87 for transmission, then drive efficiency (0.9) = 0.78

36.6*0.78/0.3 = ~100miles/gallon equivalent for a SMALL car, or 50Miles/gallon equivalent for a large car.  You will note that most claim worse than this due to my overly conservative efficiencies.  Actual gains is about 2X-->3X.  Not your 4X-->5X.

and if you have house batteries in between with an inverter both ways is 0.9*0.9 = 0.81 = 81 miles/gallon equivalent and a larger car 40MPG.  So, 2X gain in efficiency.

As for residential/business heating, majority are HVAC already and most are converting ASAP where the majority of NG is used for H2O heating which is ~3% of energy needs.  Never understood why this did not become standard in the 1950's with the advent of R12 and R22.  It is even more efficient if you paint your collector black and place in the sun obtaining COP's of greater than 5.  But for some stupid reason, you do not see them on roofs, because people would rather super snazy snootsville than have cheap house to live in. 

Of course plastics, fertilzer, trucks, trains(possible to electrify), ships, airplanes all are utterly unable to be electrified.  We already turn 45% of our corn crop able to feed a Billion people into Ethanol providing a mere 5% of our car transportation needs which becomes about 3% of actual.   The above is 1/3-->1/2 of all oil/NG used and many things like Iron, Aluminum etc whose current efficiencies go into the crapper if you try to use electricity which means you have to have a carbon source and collect it which is MASSIVELY inefficient.

PS: We will just vacuum up the Methane hydrates off the continental shelves is the actual answer. 

 

One thing about electric vehicles is that regenerative electric braking could be improved.  Stop-and-go traffic and down hill braking could eventually be improved with the added upside of reduced brake pad wear.

Another thing smart e-cars can do is from long aerodynamic "tailgating" trains - it is safe because the lead car controls a portion of the brakes of all the follow cars and can react faster than humans.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, John Dille said:

https://www.llnl.gov/news/us-energy-use-rises-highest-level-ever

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ THIS CHART... AND I DO... IT COULD TELL YOU WHY BIG OIL AND BIG COAL AND THEIR REPUBLICAN PUPPETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS... ARE SO EXTREMELY TERRIFIED OF THE GREEN ENERGY REVOLUTION!!!   LOOK AT HOW EXTREMELY WASTEFUL OUR ENERGY SYSTEM IS... RIGHT AT 2 OUT OF EVERY 3 UNITS OF ENERGY PUT INTO THE SYSTEM... GOES IMMEDIATELY TO WASTE... MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF BURNED UP FOSSIL FUELS AND THE CO2 THAT THAT EMITS!!!  MOST OF THAT WASTE COMES FROM TRANSPORTATION... AND MOST ESPECIALLY FROM THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY.  NOW... LOOK AT THE INPUTS FROM SOLAR, HYDRO, AND WIND.  COMBINED... THOSE INPUTS ARE ONLY ABOUT 7% OF TOTAL ALL INPUTS... BUT... THEY REPRESENT MORE THAN HALF OF ALL THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED IN THE USA... BECAUSE LITTLE OF THOSE GREEN ENERGY INPUTS GO INSTANTLY TO WASTE!!!  THOSE SOLAR WIND AND HYDRO INPUTS ARE SMALL... RELATIVE TO THE MASSIVE INPUTS OF NUCLEAR, COAL, AND NATURAL GAS INPUTS... BUT... MOST OF THOSE INPUTS OF COAL, NATURAL GAS AND NUCLEAR GO IMMEDIATELY TO WASTE... THUS THEIR NET INPUT IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE NET INPUTS FROM WIND, SOLAR, AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER!!!   ALL OF WHICH MEANS THAT ADDING 1 QUAD OF SOLAR AND WIND AND HYDRO INPUTS... OFFSETS THE NEED FOR 3 QUADS OF FOSSIL FUEL OR NUCLEAR INPUTS!!!  IF WE SIMPLY KEEP ADDING MORE AND MORE HYDRO AND SOLAR AND WIND POWER, WE DRAMATICALLY REDUCE OUR NEED FOR COAL AND NUCLEAR AND EVEN NATURAL GAS FOR ELECTRICITY GENERATION... EVENTUALLY... TO ALMOST ZERO!!!  AND WE COULD DO THAT IN JUST A COUPLE OF DECADES... AT CURRENT RATES OF GROWTH OF THOSE INDUSTRIES!!! 

AS FOR TRANSPORTATION... MUCH OF THAT WASTE COULD BE ELIMINATED... ALONG WITH THE MASSIVE CO2 PRODUCTION THAT IT LEADS TO... SIMPLY BY GETTING MORE AND MORE TRANSPORTATION ENERGY FROM WIND AND SOLAR... AND HYDRO!!!  ALL OF WHICH EXPLAINS WHY MANY GIANT OIL COMPANIES... ARE SPENDING HEAVILY ON WIND AND SOLAR.... AND WHY DONALD TRUMP'S ANTI GREEN NEW DEAL STANCE... IS THE MARK OF A TOTAL IDIOT WHO IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LOUD MOUTH PUPPET OF THE FAR RIGHT... WHICH MAKES MOST OF ITS REVENUE FROM THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF FOSSIL FUELS... ALL OF WHICH ARE BEING STOLEN FROM WE AMERICANS... AND FROM BILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD!!!   UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, AND YOU WILL SEE CLEARLY WHY THE CONSERVATIVE VISON OF OUR FUTURE WILL DESTROY OUR NATION AND PLANET... AND WHY THE LIBERAL NEW GREEN VISION IS OUR ONLY HOPE FOR SURVIVAL... BECAUSE... NEVER MIND GLOBAL WARMING... OUR FOSSIL FUEL ENDOWMENT IS FINITE... AND WE ARE USING IT UP... AND WASTING MOST OF IT... AT ENORMOUS RATES!!!  MOSTLY TO BENEFIT A FEW THOUSAND SUPER RICH RIGHT WING ULTRA CONSERVATIVE FASCIST AHOLES WHO DO NOT GIVE A RATS REAR END ABOUT ALL THE REST OF US!!! 

 

UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, AND YOU WILL SEE CLEARLY WHY THE CONSERVATIVE VISON OF OUR FUTURE WILL DESTROY OUR NATION AND PLANET... AND WHY THE LIBERAL NEW GREEN VISION IS OUR ONLY HOPE FOR SURVIVAL

f54992056ef39572954f9c373dad560ac1820d9aa55fa160bd8c5fd69bb76421.jpg

 

But I thought Obi-Wan Kenobi was my only hope. 

0_HZ1p4dgeLXRNQwDI.jpeg

 

Dang it, these are not the droids we're looking for.

ef1.jpg

 

< These are not the droids we're looking for. >

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Oil Price Forum mind trick works like a charm yet again : )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2019 at 2:33 PM, Enthalpic said:

It certainly matters if the disease hasn't been completely wiped out (measles, pertussis).

Parts 3 and 4 of your post are a perfect example of conspiracy theories and anti-science. Yeah, all those scientists spanning across several universities and countries are all concealing the same lie (or manipulating data for no reason)... do you realize how unrealistic that is?  Like someone earlier said tenured professors can't easily be fired, so they have no vested interest in publishing lies - their salary is safe - and getting caught falsifying data as a scientist is career suicide (nobody will publish you after).

So, you have never bothered to ever look at the data.  You take on faith what someone says is true.... Ok. 

Here is another inconvenient fact for your zealotry: Daily High temperatures in EVERY global temperature data set has decreasing temperatures.  Daily LOW temperatures have increased.  Another inconvenient fact for your zealotry, vast majority of those temperature sensors are in cities.  Cities retain heat overnight due to mostly being CONCRETE...  How BIG is the bias in temperature collection?  GIS UHSCN Is the bias taken out?  Hell no..... 

What happens when we take out city data?  OOPS... Real scientists got USCRN data placed in the 90's far from all cities...  Daily lows also decreasing... ooopsies.  Satellite data which maps vast majority of earth surface without cities also shows decreasing daily lows.... oopsies.

Your religion has fatal flaws with basic raw data dude. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wastral said:

So, you have never bothered to ever look at the data.  You take on faith what someone says is true.... Ok. 

Here is another inconvenient fact for your zealotry: Daily High temperatures in EVERY global temperature data set has decreasing temperatures.  Daily LOW temperatures have increased.  Another inconvenient fact for your zealotry, vast majority of those temperature sensors are in cities.  Cities retain heat overnight due to mostly being CONCRETE...  How BIG is the bias in temperature collection?  GIS UHSCN Is the bias taken out?  Hell no..... 

What happens when we take out city data?  OOPS... Real scientists got USCRN data placed in the 90's far from all cities...  Daily lows also decreasing... ooopsies.  Satellite data which maps vast majority of earth surface without cities also shows decreasing daily lows.... oopsies.

Your religion has fatal flaws with basic raw data dude. 

I'm not a climate scientist, so yes I do listen to the experts.  I'm also certain you have not "looked at the raw data" and done all the math on it yourself - as that would literally be a full time job for several years... no, instead you probably just get that crap off some conspiracy site.

I also personally know polar bear researchers who have done field trips to the arctic every year for the last several decades and have listened to their first hand accounts.  it was actually the effects on bears - not thermometer data - that was first noticed. This guys office was down the hall from mine for a decade.  Super tough arctic and antarctic explorer, insanely smart (Order of Canada)... guns, low-flying helicopters and bears. A true grit Canadian. :)

https://polarbearsinternational.org/profiles/ian-stirling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stirling_(biologist)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

I'm not a climate scientist, so yes I do listen to the experts.  I'm also certain you have not "looked at the raw data" and done all the math on it yourself - as that would literally be a full time job for several years... no, instead you probably just get that crap off some conspiracy site.

I also personally know polar bear researchers who have done field trips to the arctic every year for the last several decades and have listened to their first hand accounts.  it was actually the effects on bears - not thermometer data - that was first noticed. This guys office was down the hall from mine for a decade.  Super tough arctic and antarctic explorer, insanely smart (Order of Canada)... guns, low-flying helicopters and bears. A true grit Canadian. :)

https://polarbearsinternational.org/profiles/ian-stirling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stirling_(biologist)

 

So, you have a rational mind, but refuse to look, and use your mind, wishing to believe.  Brilliant. No one needs to be a "climate" scientist to READ a damned simple graph of daily high temperatures and daily low temperatures.  If you think you do, then you have an IQ somewhere around 50 and I am positive you do not work in the oil/gas industry. 

Ah, the polar bear argument... Increasing numbers of polar bears = Global warming and decreasing # of polar bears = global warming.... Absolute genius.  Quick! These zealot morons need more grant money!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

So, you have a rational mind, but refuse to look, and use your mind, wishing to believe.  Brilliant. No one needs to be a "climate" scientist to READ a damned simple graph of daily high temperatures and daily low temperatures.  If you think you do, then you have an IQ somewhere around 50 and I am positive you do not work in the oil/gas industry. 

Ah, the polar bear argument... Increasing numbers of polar bears = Global warming and decreasing # of polar bears = global warming.... Absolute genius.  Quick! These zealot morons need more grant money!!!

I've mentioned several times I'm a chemist and don't work in the oil and gas industry.  In fact I don't work much at all anymore - just trade equities (including O&G, which is why I first came here) and live off investments.   I did work in the environmental regulatory field for many years and have seen many presentations that aren't open to the public (yes, scientists are muzzled by their governments and are not allowed to speak to press without approval in most cases).  Furthermore, these biologists are not zealots, or even that far left-leaning; almost all of them own guns, hunt, drive big trucks - certainly not Greenpeace or PETA folks - just really smart nature nuts.

P.S.  I did have to go to a few "special classes" when I was in grade school... the gifted classes. Pissed me off as I wanted to stay with my friends.

You would never have the guts to call Dr Ian Stirling a moron to his face; and if you did some of his bear-handling former graduate students would probably toss you out.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 4/17/2019 at 5:47 AM, Enthalpic said:

Smaller organisms have a higher surface area to volume ratio which improves chemical kinetics. It's not a problem unless you get too small - just have more of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio

As a chemist I kind of dislike that bioreactors work so well... but gene altered microbes can crap out fancy molecules way more efficiently than we can make then in a lab or a standard chemical plant. 

The efficiency and sensitivity could have been reduced by very large percentage or no? Here's how it seems:

image.png.8843629195cc6764c11275b0552aecf1.png

 

On 4/18/2019 at 1:41 PM, Wastral said:

So, you have never bothered to ever look at the data.  You take on faith what someone says is true.... Ok. 

Here is another inconvenient fact for your zealotry: Daily High temperatures in EVERY global temperature data set has decreasing temperatures.  Daily LOW temperatures have increased.  Another inconvenient fact for your zealotry, vast majority of those temperature sensors are in cities.  Cities retain heat overnight due to mostly being CONCRETE...  How BIG is the bias in temperature collection?  GIS UHSCN Is the bias taken out?  Hell no..... 

What happens when we take out city data?  OOPS... Real scientists got USCRN data placed in the 90's far from all cities...  Daily lows also decreasing... ooopsies.  Satellite data which maps vast majority of earth surface without cities also shows decreasing daily lows.... oopsies.

Your religion has fatal flaws with basic raw data dude. 

It's a nice argument but........ according to a jobless climate change observer......... the argument paracem this:

image.png.73ac3022a4fe95fc09f19dc06107cc2f.png

Edited by specinho
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2019 at 7:28 PM, Justin Hicks said:

I'd say we have around 53 years before we find out 😊

When I was in College in the Mid 80s one of my Economics Professors told us that we (the US) have over a 200 year supply available in the ground. So that now leaves 170ish years to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys are a bunch of wack-jobs that display the epitome of hypocrisy. I was in London this weekend, the "Extinction Rebellion" were shutting down the Tube, streets and spraying graffiti on thousand year old landmarks. I posted pics from outside Westminister Abbey. Notice a lot of them wearing shoes made of leather or holding bags made of some petroleum byproduct.  I wonder how many of them have relied on oil consuming transportation their entire lives?  This women at the podium sounded like a space cadet like AOC, the "Yellow Jackets" of Paris, the same thing.  This whole thing is about getting attention.  They were abused children.   I have lots of theories why they are who they are but one thing is for sure, they are all a bunch of hypocrites!

 

 

20190420_162027.jpg

20190420_162827.jpg

20190420_162829.jpg

20190420_162834.jpg

20190420_162845.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites