Mostly I am interested in an argument - and a policy - that might simultaneously meet the interests of those whose primary concerns are either environmental or economic. In this case I have concluded that the ONLY feasible solution to either (without driving the other to disaster) turns out to be a solution for BOTH.
You note some interesting substitutions for petroleum in both fuels and chemical production (and perhaps to new petroleum-related sources of Deisel fuel) - areas that I don't know so well. Do you think that they can compete economically within the next decade or so with current sources?
sure, diesle engines are just modified gas engines and jet fuel is a non ester , its mostly kero with bunker C for flavor. You bird jockeys were actually flying souped up salamanders.
I never figured out the love with gas engines (Until I read the books about the empire of Dupont and GM in the early 20th century) Diesel is much more energy dense and is moire efficient in combustion (it self combusts with compression once it gets started)
Im a diesel fan but the low sulfur goal is actually not associated with global warming, its a goal to reduce acid deposition , so Im reluctantly for it. As far as global warming, I must be the only liberal on A2K that shouts out that "ITS ALLLLL BUUUUULLLL SHEEEETT"
Im angry that its been so politicized and that good science appears to be in the hands of the Rush Limbaughs(whom I detest).
Im in a moral dilemma (emotican of wry wink and look of confusion)
Your'e right the JP-5 we burned in Navy jets was mostly kerosene -- that the result of a Navy rule that no liquids with flash points below about 200 deg. F were allowed onboard ships. Whenever we stopped for fuel at an Air Force base, or got fuel on a mission from an Air Force tanker, we got JP-4 which then was mostly low octane (< 135) avgas. JP-5 was of a higher density than JP-4, so you could pack more lbs of it into the tanks, but, owing to its lower heating value, fewer BTUs than with JP-4. I believe both have now gone on to a new formula, JP-8, but I don't know just what it is.
I believe the future is with new design Diesel engines in terms of their inherent efficiency & economy. The problem of particulate in their exhaust (with petroleum fuel), and (I suspect) added design/manufacturing cost has limited their use in the U.S., but, interestingly, not in Europe - I don't really know why.
Interestingly the sulfur is a benefit from the perspective of AGW - sox is an inverse greenhouse gas. (Bad for acid rain though)
I don't really know the truth of the AGW matter. Except that I am sure that from a geological perspective we are in between ice ages, and that the various numerical models used to forecast AGW catastrophes based on altered ocean currents and heat transport, albedo and all the resultant effects are pure BS - based on the known ineffectiveness of such models in accurately forecasting next month's weather (chaos, etc.)
georgeob1 wrote:Mostly I am interested in an argument - and a policy - that might simultaneously meet the interests of those whose primary concerns are either environmental or economic. In this case I have concluded that the ONLY feasible solution to either (without driving the other to disaster) turns out to be a solution for BOTH.
I personally have a weakness for a revival of the Stanley Steamer -- powered by a small nuclear reactor.
Clearly, Thomas, the New Jersey experience is taking a toll on you !
No, it's just submarine envy.
miniTAX wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:I.........Supply has peaked in the N Sea and Mexico. Production is declining in Russia. Only 20% of the worlds oil now comes from non OPEC countries. And they (OPEC) have been lying about their resources. A greater and greater percentage of the worlds oil will come from just 5 OPEC countries in future, Iraq Saudi Arabia UAE Kuwait and Iran. And the biggest field of all Ghawar in Saudi is now depleting. They're getting more out by increasing water injection.
Why do people keep repeating such nonsense ?!
Ghawar water injection rate less than 40%.
What you bolded is not nonsense. Is Ghawar depleting? Is water injection used more extensively? The answer to both is yes. I am not saying there is no oil left in Saudi Arabia.
No serious commentator disputes Peak Oil. Its just the timing that people argue about. I'm not an oil expert, but I look around and see what people and governments DO as opposed to what they say. And I notice the price of oil. From what I observe the early peakers like Campbell and Simmons seem to be nearer the mark.
And Thomas, what was that bet we had about the oil price, I forget when we agreed to settle it.
fm wrote-
Quote: I must be the only liberal on A2K that shouts out that "ITS ALLLLL BUUUUULLLL SHEEEETT"
You're no liberal fm.
Bio-fuel is a non-starter. Serious reduction of use is the only real option and it's starting to happen.
"Hang 'em now. That'll larn 'em." Brecht.
The reason diesel engines are more popular in Europe is two fold. They are more efficient. Fuel is more expensive in Europe.
George, I'm glad you now agree with me the energy shortfall is real and pressing. We need all the technical solutions you propose (I say we because we share the same planet) and more. But I think we may have left it too late to convert to a high efficiency low carbon economy without considerable pain. The new infrastructure should be substantially in place by now. Instead its hardly more than a glint in a politician's eye. And still there are those who wont face up to reality, either because they are too stupid to understand...no one on this thread falls into that category I hasten to add...or because they are too comfortable in their profligate use of fossil fuels and really dont want to understand and therefore change. It seems to me the majority view in America falls into the latter category. We will get no leadership from the fat and lazy. The problem for the rest of the world is that those same people command the most sophisticated and powerful weapons.
Farmer. Why do you think global warming is bullshit if the globe is warming?
Thomas wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Mostly I am interested in an argument - and a policy - that might simultaneously meet the interests of those whose primary concerns are either environmental or economic. In this case I have concluded that the ONLY feasible solution to either (without driving the other to disaster) turns out to be a solution for BOTH.
I personally have a weakness for a revival of the Stanley Steamer -- powered by a small nuclear reactor.
Good idea Thomas. But it would mean total conversion to Islam and adoption of sharia law, otherwise we would have millions of nuclear reactors flying about our roads, half of them controlled by women.
Steve- fuel is not more expensive in Europe. Tax is a political choice. It has nothing to do with the fuel. We are paying for other things when we buy vehicle fuel.
A supermarket near here is selling Stella Artois at less than the petrol price.
Packs of 24x440 ml 5.2% @ £10.47 Six cases max. per customer plus a fiver off if you had a voucher out of The Sun newspaper.
The oil price spike might be an attempt to slow down the emerging economies in the east. "I see my light come shinin', from the West down to the East."
What price do you think OPEC dare take it to without risk of Western military intervention? We are addicted don't forget. That's official.
Steve, Global warmin g has been linked to human activities. Yet , coolheaded reasonable science shows just the opposite.
The evidence used to support anthro causes , is quite weak and an increasing number of scientists have , after a period of review as to whats being said in their names, are poo pooing these data.
Why are the global warmists insisting that polar bears are going extinct from climate change? Its just not true.
The relationship between climate and atmospheric CO2 is weak at best.
Mean sea levcel has risen steadily since the 1860's, even before the industrial age
A strengthening of the thermohaline circulation goes counter to what global warming "scientists" are saying
Al Gore states that each of the last interglacial periods were brought on by CO2 levels. Actually paleoclimate chemistry shows that it was the opposite, that warming brought about the release of CO2 from plant mass and that CO2 was a "following" indicator. Thus the argument for Carbon dioxide as a global warming cause is also probably wrong. (Im still seeing the newest data from AGU as now more carefully measuring the actual lag time between proposed causes and "effects" . ALso the jump to autocorrelation is , as Ive always been told, should always be viewed with suspicion.
The arctic ocean is actually 1 degree C warmer than it was in the 1940's, this too, is confirmed by IPCCC and AGU data. The Open seas argument is based on leass than 30 years worth of data and, like the counter truth about the "death of polar bears" the Arctic passages were open 3 times in the past century , all in the early century and in the 1940's
The Greenland Ice SHeet is actually growing, in contrast to what "Inconvenient truth" says
West Nile Virus is not spreading as predicted by global warming fans. West Nile virus occurs in the high ARctic and in desert regions. ITS NOT climate sensitive
The carbon dioxide data for atmospheric concentrations has no effect on the atmospheric temperature. CO2 is tken up and transferred into measurable biomass production. This is a result of agricultural reserch worldwide.
Theres a litany of bogus data thats being useed to support man induced climate change, and this data, or lets say, most of it, just to be fair to me because Im nor certain what all of it says, although Im paying closer attention these days.
Steve 41oo wrote:miniTAX wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:I.........Supply has peaked in the N Sea and Mexico. Production is declining in Russia. Only 20% of the worlds oil now comes from non OPEC countries. And they (OPEC) have been lying about their resources. A greater and greater percentage of the worlds oil will come from just 5 OPEC countries in future, Iraq Saudi Arabia UAE Kuwait and Iran. And the biggest field of all Ghawar in Saudi is now depleting. They're getting more out by increasing water injection.
Why do people keep repeating such nonsense ?!
Ghawar water injection rate less than 40%.
What you bolded is not nonsense. Is Ghawar depleting? Is water injection used more extensively? The answer to both is yes. I am not saying there is no oil left in Saudi Arabia.
Steve, I didn't address Saudi Arabia. I was talking about Ghawar. And I repeat: saying Ghawar "is depleting" because its water injection rate is increased from 34% to 36% while world rate is 75% is NONSENSE.
Man, I thought I coulnd'nt be clearer.
Steve 41oo wrote:From what I observe the early peakers like Campbell and Simmons seem to be nearer the mark.
Campbell & Simmons have been way off the mark many many times in the past (look at my above graph). Those guys have kept yelling peak-oil for more than 20 years, it's like saying one day you'll die. They can't be wrong, some day. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day.
But it would be foolish to listen to them, just like it would be foolish to consult a doctor whose diagnostics have proven false many times in the past.
It's all just self-justification. The US has 5% of the world's population and causes 25% of the world's pollution.
Oil has not increased in price relative to gold and other commodoties. It's a magic paper routine.
And fm and George are probably higher than US average polluters and they also use the discussion to parade their machismo because American men are frightened to death of being thought sissies or racists or screwers up of their grandchildren's future.
The Age of Consequences is dawning. The sophists weave their words so they can carry on as they have been doing and posing as responsible men. It's the St. Augustine "but not just yet" thing.
spendius wrote:It's all just self-justification. The US has 5% of the world's population and causes 25% of the world's pollution.
........
Spendius - your flagrant disregard for statistics is amply proven on this forum. Stop posting nonsense on subjects you evidently know nothing about, starting with the definition of scientific terms.
farmerman wrote:Al Gore states that each of the last interglacial periods were brought on by CO2 levels.
Do you have a source for Gore saying this farmer? I don't recall it from his movie.
If he did say it, he was wrong. If he didn't say it then those claiming he said it are wrong. The source would be nice.
Would you mind proving that instead of just blurting it.
Otherwise everybody will get the impression that the US citizens, and particularly those rich enough to have computers, are the greenest little angelic fairies on the surface of the earth which is what I assume your innuendos are designed to confirm, so that their highly admirable behaviour will be emulated by the other 6 billion on earth and we can get all this mess cleared up once and for all.
Certainly I can prove what I say.
You use the term "pollution" without defining it. The worst polluters on the planet are, in order, Africa, China, India.
Perhaps you'll accept the measurements made from NASA's satellites as reliable:
Quote:About 50% of all large biomass fires on earth occur in Africa13 (Hao et al, 1991) where burning emissions are strongest in the dry season south of the equator between July and October.14 Of these fires, 50% is attributed to savanna burning, 24% to shifting cultivation, 10% deforestation, 11% domestic burning and 5% agricultural waste burning.15 The significance of these biomass sources is, however, exemplified in their role in global photochemical ozone formation, to which they contribute as much as 35%.16 The seasonal persistence of ozone on the equatorial West African coast is attributed both to the intensity and duration of biomass burning on the African continent.17
http://www.uneca.org/csd/CSD4_Report_of_African_Atmosphere_and_Air_Pollution.htm
