Monday, June 07, 2010

Karl's Nervous Breakdown?

Karl were you long the market today? Lol. That is the only way to explain the arrogant childlike drivel you’ve been posting today.

First you attacked Kunstler, in a very immature manner. I dont agree with Kunstler on everything, sure, but there's no need for holier-than-thou saber-rattling pettiness when simple facts can suffice.

Kunstler's long view, his term "the long emergency", is spot on. The United States oil production peaked 40 years ago. You can talk about thermodynamics till you're blue in the face, but doing so only illustrates your own ignorance. We didnt peak 40 years ago because we didnt "drill baby drill." The environmentalists played no part in the peaking of US oil production. The US peaked precisely due to the basic laws of physics.

And then there’s coal and shale. I have written about our "vast" shale reserves in the past.

Coal has a way of revealing people's ignorance. A great deal of damage has been done to this country due to the belief that has been programmed into Americans’ heads about America's vast unending coal and shale supplies. You have fallen victim to that propaganda. I have seen this happen many times, and it is not pretty. I suggest you do some research into our real coal and shale supplies, before you discredit yourself by sounding like a complete moron every time someone brings up the subject. I give both you and Kunstler a pass on 9/11, because there is a “tactical benefit” to willfully suffering cognitive dissonance on that subject. (It is cowardly, but undeniably easier to just "accept" the 9/11 story you were spoonfed.) But on the subject of coal you just sound like a damn fool. And for that I may as well just turn on “tout tv”, as you call it.

The United States already passed "peak btu's" for coal. The more btu's per year we want, the more damage must be done to the environment, in an EXPONENTIAL manner. With all the railing you do over people's failure to understand exponential function, surely you would not dare to commit the same act of foolishness? There is no way to replace our liquid fuel consumption with coal. Only a country in a state of collapse would dare attempt something so foolish so late in the game. Like the Nazis in WWII.

EREOI is NOT a crock of ****. Your logic for calling it such is deeply flawed. So what if EREOI is always negative if one includes the input of the Sun? What does that have to do with anything? Does the word relevant mean anything to you? The input from the sun is a given, as such it is universally agreed upon that it is irrelevant in energy investment terms. You are making a straw man argument. Again, you sound like a damn fool by even saying such things. Sunlight does not matter for calculating EROEI because it of its low energy density. The only exceptions would be situations where sunlight energy is lost in the process of mining. For example if we tear up fertile land to mine tar sands, we might lose some of our food supply, which then has to be replaced with more fuel-intensive farming of non-fertile land elsewhere. That would lower the EROEI of tar sands, but probably only slightly. As I said, the sun's effect can largely be ignored.

EROI is at the heart of everything. What does NOT matter for EROEI is how much oil costs in dollars. The dollar cost is fiat. What matters is how much ENERGY it takes to produce a barrel of oil. It MUST cost significantly less than a barrel of oil worth of energy to produce a barrel of oil. It does not matter whether that oil COSTS $20 a barrel or $200. You have it exactly backwards, and no amount of tantrums and bansticks are going to change that. EROI matters. Ore grades matter. Threatening to ban people because they refuse to accept your misunderstandings of thermodynamics is just sad.

It does not matter how many antelope are out there in yonder field. If it takes more energy for Mr Tiger to catch one than he gets from eating it, then Mr Tiger will not survive. That too is just simple math.

You say The EREOI folks are 100% full of **** and I, for one, am tired of the lies and intentional misdirection they run, when they KNOW they're full of crap as they tolerate a HORRIBLE EREOI every single time they turn the key in their vehicle.

Again here is a logical reasoning error. The 20~30% energy efficiency of a gasoline engine is not in dispute by anyone, so you are making yet another straw man argument. Pretty weak stuff here. How can you possible expect to win any argument using grade school logical fallacies? Oh yeah, you have a ban stick. lol.

Going back to coal. If you graph the amount of btu's of US coal energy production per year, AND subract the amount of equivalent btu's of energy it took to mine that coal each year, you can see that it has peaked. If you just look at the number of tons of coal produced each year, you can't see it. When making an EROEI calculation you have to also subtract the amount of energy used to clean up all the disasters caused by the coal mining. There is a long list of energy costs associated, and they cannot be ignored, even by some 6 year old spaz waving a magic ban-stick. What CAN be ignored is the sun's role in producing the coal. That is just absurd nonsense in terms of EROEI discussion.

My guess is you hate the "EROEI folks" because they go over your head and make your brain hurt. But anyone serious about energy knows that you cannot ignore these hidden costs, as they are very real. For example, take the lake that is polluted by coal mining, causing thousands of tons of fish to be lost. What happens then? Well it means someone now has to venture further out into the ocean to catch fish to replace that part of the food supply that was lost. And guess what? Bingo, it costs more energy to do that. And the BP oil spill in the gulf? Again, it costs energy to clean that mess up and also to look elsewhere to replace the lost food supply. Yes, that does count against the EROEI of oil production! And no, waving your stupid magic stick around does not change that fact. These neverending and ever-expanding "collateral costs" of energy production MUST be factored into the true energy content of our energy sources. That is the essence of NET energy. If we do not get NET energy production, we get severe economic contraction.

Finally, one last thing. You repeatedly mention how $9 or $15 a gallon gasoline will mystically solve the energy problems, because then it will be cheaper to produce alternatives. Dead wrong. What it will do is cut off those who cannot afford the expensive energy. People will be forced to make do with less. And in that process, the economy contracts. Capital becomes scarce. Alternative energy does not get produced because the energy input costs are too great, bankrupting anyone who tries it. (It's that damned EROEI again...) What ultimately happens is that gasoline prices collapse after enough people become destitute, and demand collapses. Then gas is cheap again. The only difference is there are a million or two people who used to live a decent life, but are now living in tent cities and consuming no fuel. But you dont give a damn about them do you? It's not your problem. It's only your faulty arrogant reasoning that helps create such devastation. It is endemic to our propagandized culture.

I once read a comment on the web (probably on Oil Drum) many years ago, about how our post peak world could literally be soaked in oil, like the Gulf Coast is destined to be. How can that be, I thought? Because our reckless and extremely dangerous pursuit of hard-to-reach energy causes so much devastation that it leaves our entire planet in ruins. Such a scenario is possible. And even so, we could still be producing many tens of millions of barrels of oil per day. But we'd still be past the peak of oil production. And most of the civilized world would be in a state of collapse. But I'm sure there'd still be plenty of jackasses cruising around in their SUV's thinking the world is just peachy. Please dont be one of those.

3 Comments:

Blogger RobertM said...

His tantrums about "greenies" and banning anyone who disagrees with him stopped me from continuing to read his stuff. He's right on a lot of stuff but he seems to think he has all the answers (beware of ANYONE who thinks that).

What are your thoughts on LTFR?

1:19 PM  
Blogger Iconoclast421 said...

You mean LFTR? I am a big proponent of thorium based power. Unfortunately the political climate in the USA is probably too far gone to actually believe that I'll see it develop here in my lifetime. It is much more likely to develop in India and China.

7:20 PM  
Blogger RobertM said...

Yes, that's what I meant. My typing is dyslexic. I hope thorium reactors become a reality.
It probably has about the same chances as sovereign money though (in other words...none). I'd like to see either the swarmusa or American Monetary Act proposals enacted but frankly the US is both too corrupt and too dumb to do anything that works. FSM help us all.

1:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home