[vansig]

Aeronaut wrote:
The question thus becomes “how long will fossil fuels (not the wells) be economically viable?”

this is probably a function of price of the cheapest one: coal.

estimated world coal reserves
“At the end of 2006 the recoverable coal reserves amounted to around 800 or 900 gigatons.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves

[vansig]

Brian H wrote:

Surely the transparency exists in the research to make it possible for any ordinary person, like me, to run this?
Surely I dont need to join some club, and make an oath of silence?
Surely I can publish, even self-publish, all the results and the code for verification, if i write it myself?

Nope.

So, what you’re saying is, there is nothing to learn from the exercise, and if i have the audacity to write up a GW calculator and attempt to publish, then it’ll be called unscientific, and i’ll not be invited to the cool parties anymore.

🙂

[vansig]

In a different thread, there is a raging debate about CO2, and whether it has an effect or no, and whether there is transparency or secrets kept, in the field of climatology. that debate is slightly more appropriately placed here.

So,
Given a spinning sphere, period=24h, radius=6371km, albedo=0.367, at 1AU from the Sun, atmosphere scale height=7 km, and known concentrations of various gases, it should be possible to calculate the contribution of each one on temperature from their absorption spectra. This is an incomplete model, certainly, but regardless of validity we should be able to learn something from it.

So: what then, does it say, about the effect of GHG concentrations, eg CO2 between 200 – 1000 ppm, upon average global temperatures?

http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/auer_files/image001.gif

Surely the transparency exists in the research to make it possible for any ordinary person, like me, to run this?
Surely I dont need to join some club, and make an oath of silence?
Surely I can publish, even self-publish, all the results and the code for verification, if i write it myself?

[vansig]

by the way, this topic is supposed to be “Focus Fusion effect on the “Economic Limit” of depleted Oil Wells.”

[vansig]

Okay, Here’s an economic prediction that should be verifiable.
“Increased demand for oil results in upward pressure on the Canadian dollar.”

Let’s apply the method to hard-to-predict, easy-to-verify problems. Can you name a few?

[vansig]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

As bio-fuels become economically viable, demand for fossil oils will soften, thereby extending life time of wells.

At present bio-fuels are only economically viable because fossil oils are so expensive. If demand softens as you predict then prices will drop and bio-fuels will become less attractive. Chicken and egg.

So we should set energy policy to dampen boom-bust fluctuations, then; and cause the switch-over to algae fuels to occur gradually.

[vansig]

Brian H wrote:
Retro-casting is useful for generating speculations and eventually hypotheses. Actual predictions require full disclosure of model variables and algorithms, plus input data set, which are then frozen (no touch, no fiddle) for the duration of the prediction. A reasonable fit fails to disprove the forecast model; a failure invalidates it completely (since the specific reason can only be guessed at — for which you need a brand new square one re-prediction and test.) Enough failures to disprove, despite best (honest) efforts, and you MAY begin to put some reliance on the model.

None of the Warmist scenario-games meet any of those criteria.

Stunt FOIA requests do not really expose a lack of full disclosure.

Let’s lock in Hansen’s predictions made in 1988. There were three scenarios, A, B, and C.
Observations are now out of agreement with A; but B and C are still good.
— http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

[vansig]

Breakable wrote:
Interestingly not a single hard-science field, probably those principles are not so reliable eh?

Sorry, that statement is absurd if you can select “hard-science” to mean anything “easy to predict”. Do not dismiss whole fields and attempt to use that dismissal as ‘evidence’ that a methodology may be unreliable. Instead, test the power of the method against its competitors on those hard-to-predict problems.

[vansig]

The text of these principles is available for download/verification at
http://forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=7

i see the content .doc files on the submenus..
Bootstrapping, Selecting, Combining, Evaluating, Expert, Extrapolation, Rule-based, Standards, Role-playing.

[vansig]

vansig wrote:
But cheap energy will also increase the competitive advantage of virtually every recycling process.

Eventually, as fossil fuel resources are depleted, it will become cheaper to burn waste, capture the gases, pump them through algae tanks, and use sunlight to make bio-diesel. Cheap electricity comes into this equation, but it isn’t the lion’s share of costs.

So the question on my mind, is: at what price per barrel of oil will this make economic sense?

For soy-based bio-diesel, this price point is somewhere between $50 .. 70 / barrel.
— http://faircompanies.com/news/view/the-importance-biodiesel/

Note, though, that subsidized bio-fuels have been heavily criticized for absurd practices like rain-forest destruction, costly farming, and pushing up food prices.

“The cost of soybean oil needed to produce a gallon of biodiesel averages $3 [..misprint omitted..], where only $1.82 worth of crude oil is necessary to produce an equivalent gallon of fuel, according to Energy Information Administration statistics.”
— http://bioenergy.checkbiotech.org/news/illinois_biodiesel_industry_hurt_mired_tax_legislation

As bio-fuels become economically viable, demand for fossil oils will soften, thereby extending life time of wells.

[vansig]

Brian H wrote:

I doubt we’ll ever be looking at a shortage of carbon, on this planet.
…

We’re in a CO2 famine, with levels near the all-time geological low.

I must be rich, then. I convinced my neighbour to compost last year’s leaves from her red maple tree, and we now have 4.5 m³ of dense compost, for planting, this year. That’s several times the amount that could come from food wastes for a typical family.

[vansig]

Rezwan wrote: Iron man (many mysterious bits seemed somehow related. Not sure)

definitely Iron man.
a portable, limitless power source that is safe enough to wear on your chest? can only be fusion, after all. 🙂

“Escape from New York” — http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
i hear this has fusion as a hot topic, but i haven’t seen the film myself.

nor have i seen the next two..

“The Twilight Zone” Cold Fusion (2003) — http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734775/

Twilight (Physics in the Twilight) (1995 documentary short) — http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388491/

[vansig]

vansig wrote: well, where ever they end up, it looks like you want them to mass < 500 mg for each watt they generate.

So their off-the-shelf product is this 20 kW panel.
http://www.mtpvcorp.com/product-meter.php?tab=3&btn=13

Note, however, to meet mass limits we’ll want this to be < ~10 kg. Though theoretically possible, i'm not seeing it in this unit.

[vansig]

I doubt we’ll ever be looking at a shortage of carbon, on this planet.

Returning to the original topic, the referenced formula uses the term LOE, as “the lease operating expenses in dollars per well per month”. Cheap energy, increased equipment reliability, and greater automation will each reduce this, in the long term.

Some Alberta tar sands producers are already looking at the use of nuclear thermal reactors to help them extract oil more cleanly and completely.

But cheap energy will also increase the competitive advantage of virtually every recycling process.

Eventually, as fossil fuel resources are depleted, it will become cheaper to burn waste, capture the gases, pump them through algae tanks, and use sunlight to make bio-diesel. Cheap electricity comes into this equation, but it isn’t the lion’s share of costs.

So the question on my mind, is: at what price per barrel of oil will this make economic sense?

[vansig]

vansig wrote: it’s looking like these MTPV cells like it hot: if i’m reading this right, that’s 1000 – 1500 °C; but they generate 5-10 watts/cm².

okay, the newer prototype can work at temperatures as low as ~550 °C. I’m reading 7.4 W/cm² at 640 °C, and 11.8 W/cm² at 780 °C.
— http://tinyurl.com/22rxahe

[Author]

Posts