Collapse Cafe 2024

[RE]

Yes, the apparent lack of detrimental impact of post peak crude oil production is confusing. It may be partly due to all liquids (including NGL) production continuing to increase and partly due to the fact that economic activity is still below 2019, due to COVID lockdowns in 2020 and later. The lack of crude oil growth may start to be noticeable this year.

Could be, but liquids aren't crude. Butane and propane and ethane just aren't something you jam into your internal combustion engine in any real volumes. If we were building a bunch of propane and butane powered cars it might be something to think about, but so far humans have leaned more towards EVs.

You can run a standard ICE engine on NG or Wood Gas, NF here does that.  You just need a tank to hold the gas and a carburetor to mix it with air before feeding it into the cylinder.  You could do the same with propane.

RE

[TDoS]

You can run a standard ICE engine on NG or Wood Gas, NF here does that.  You just need a tank to hold the gas and a carburetor to mix it with air before feeding it into the cylinder.  You could do the same with propane.
RE

Of course. But it isn't done in any volume because ethane, propane and butane get used for a bunch of other useful things, in part because there is so much of the crude oil around to do most of the real work.

I mean really, get some water and electricity, catch the hydrogen as it forms, put it in a tank and get DONE with all the silly carbon molecules polluting up the world regardless of whether or not they are crude oil or "liquids". But we don't do that either to any degree.

There is the technically possible...and then all the stupid stuff we bipeds do instead because it's easy.

[K-Dog]

The Sea Gypsy.

So...the blog doesn't exist anymore? I thought you were talking about Orlov most of the time during the post.

You are right.  I was.  RE brought the Sea Gypsy into it.  His blog still exists.  The Sea Gypsy

I was curious about Orlov.  Did some searching.  He has hard core fans who send him money.  Some kind of cult thing going on,  and he is living somewhere outside Saint Petersburg, and rootin for Putin.

[RE]

I mean really, get some water and electricity, catch the hydrogen as it forms, put it in a tank and get DONE with all the silly carbon molecules polluting up the world regardless of whether or not they are crude oil or "liquids". But we don't do that either to any degree.

You need a source of carbon free electricity generation to do commercial hydrolysis.  It is being done now at some nuke plants and wind farms to produce hydrogen for fuel cells.  There are multiple problems with commercializing the process.  First off, conversion of electricty to chemical energy stored in molecular hydrogen is an energy intensive process, so there is significant loss.  Second it takes still more energy to liquify the hydrogen for transport.  3rd, there is no infrastructure  built to support fuel cells and distribute the liquid hydrogen.

As new alternative solutions to fossil fuels are concerned, the Flow Batteries we discussed last week are superior to hydrogen as energy storage tech, IMHO.

RE

[RE]

I was curious about Orlov.  Did some searching.  He has hard core fans who send him money.  Some kind of cult thing going on,  and he is living somewhere outside Saint Petersburg, and rootin for Putin.

I always joked about Dmitry going back to Mother Russia and shilling for Vlad.  So he finally actually did it for real?  I wonder if he sailed his boat there from FL?  Think he gave up his FSoA passport?

RE

[RE]

RE

[TDoS]

There are multiple problems with commercializing the process.  First off, conversion of electricty to chemical energy stored in molecular hydrogen is an energy intensive process, so there is significant loss.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics isn't a "problem", it is just one of those laws of the universe type things. And people don't give a rats behind at the energy loss turning a plentiful liquid fuel like crude oil first into gasoline (loss and loss) and then BURNING it (more loss and more loss), so while engineers and pedants might care about these kinds of losses, Joe Sixpack does not.

Joe Sixpack cares about cost. Doesn't give a crap about 2nd Law nonsense from the eggheads, he cares about whether he can afford to pour diesel into his truck to still have some cash left over for bar hopping Saturday night while ICEing some dweeb in their Prius along the way. The losses could become even more horrifying (BIGGER MONSTER TRUCK FOR JOE!) and if the fuel cost doesn't slow him down (slacken demand)....nobody else cares either! Enjoy the bigger monster truck Joe! Economics in motion.

As new alternative solutions to fossil fuels are concerned, the Flow Batteries we discussed last week are superior to hydrogen as energy storage tech, IMHO.
RE

Excellent! And where might I buy enough to...say...power my home? I mean, if they are indeed superior and not just in a efficiency only contest, then part of that superiority must translate to lower costs than the alternative, and they must be whupping it up all over the alternatives.

Do you have a website where these can be purchased on a cost-competitive basis? Or are flow batterys in the land of "always better [fill in the reason why] but can't be found because efficiency isn't the only part of commercial/economic sales volumes"?

Theory is great. Commercial viability will tend to kick its backside every day of the week and twice on Sunday unless you are building solar probes that can afford ridiculous efficiencies to make their systems run in outer space for the next couple decades. No one needs that level of "better" to power their EV.

[RE]

Why are you getting your knickers in such a twist?  You made the argument why hydrogen isn't being used.  It's not as profitable as sticking with crude, as long as it holds out.  Personally, I could care less which technology replaces ffs as long as it meets the goals of reducing carbon emissions, not creating a sewer of environmental damage, is sufficiently energy dense to handle the  applications, is affordable for the end consumer and there's enough supply that can be brought online to keep the various systems we have that are energy dependent running.

Can any of the possible alternatives out there meet all these goals right now?  No, all of them have some weakness, including the fact energy companies have already invested a lot of capital in one or another of them and have a vested interest in seeing the one they picked most widely accepted and distributed.  The same folks also have a lot of debt they have to service, so they need to see a return on these investments relatively quickly.

If hydrogen appeals to you, feel free to root for further development in that sector.  I have no problem with that.  I doubt however that it will play an important role, just as I doubt Fusion power will solve the energy production problem.  Both technologies have been talked about for decades, I've been reading about clean fusion and hydrogen fuel cells in Popular Mechanics since childhood.  Given the length of time it's been worked on, you would think they would be further along with it, but they're not.  Don't blame me for that, I'm just the messenger.

RE

[TDoS]

Why are you getting your knickers in such a twist?  You made the argument why hydrogen isn't being used.

No knickers involved. And I used hydrogen as an example, sure.

It's not as profitable as sticking with crude, as long as it holds out.  Personally, I could care less which technology replaces ffs as long as it meets the goals of reducing carbon emissions, not creating a sewer of environmental damage, is sufficiently energy dense to handle the  applications, is affordable for the end consumer and there's enough supply that can be brought online to keep the various systems we have that are energy dependent running.

"goals of reducing carbon emissions" is an interesting phrase. Do you believe that there are goals, i.e. plans to do something about carbon emissions that aren't hopium? It would seem reasonable to require that anyone setting such goals would require the action to be effective, and work at the appropriate scale. Within the constraints of the goals anyway.

Do you believe there is any effective action operating at scale based on all the plans that, say, the COP folks have been discussing over the years?

Can any of the possible alternatives out there meet all these goals right now?  No, all of them have some weakness, including the fact energy companies have already invested a lot of capital in one or another of them and have a vested interest in seeing the one they picked most widely accepted and distributed.  The same folks also have a lot of debt they have to service, so they need to see a return on these investments relatively quickly.

So...if this were an answer to my prior question, would this be a yes...a no...or a maybe?

[RE]

Do you believe that there are goals, i.e. plans to do something about carbon emissions that aren't hopium?

It's definitely a goal, it's what lecture halls full of scientists tell us is necessary if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change after COP conferences.  Greta Thunberg says it too, so it must be true. lol.   Whether this is an achievable goal is an open question.  It seems unlikely to succeed in the time frame they set out, but doing something is better than doing nothing.

Do you believe there is any effective action operating at scale based on all the plans that, say, the COP folks have been discussing over the years?

Generally they don't specify actions, just set goal dates by which time we're supposed to stop burning fossil fuels.  At the rate that is happening, those dates won't be met.  I don't think there is any way to achieve those dates and maintain the per capita energy expenditure we currently use.  However, the more alternative energy sources we develop, the better off we'll be.

So...if this were an answer to my prior question, would this be a yes...a no...or a maybe?

What question? Can you buy alternatives on a cost competitive basis?  Obviously not, if you could there wouldn't be a problem.  All alternatives are still in development at one stage or another.  There's no real consensus on what is best to pursue, and different people and corporations jockey for investment capital.

Now, assuming we avoid having a catastrophic war and we don't have a global famine or plague in the next 50 years, it's likely that some alternatives will exist for some percentage of the population for some period of time.  What percentage and how wide the distribution and what the alternatives are all are open questions.  You can follow the age old wisdom: hope for the best and plan for the worst.

RE

[Fantasy Girl]

It's not as profitable as sticking with crude, as long as it holds out.

The rules of capitalism require crude be used as long as it holds out.

And that is the end of the story.

Fuck POLYCHRISIS !!!!  DO NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUE It is resource depletion. Talkers do nothing but talk, appear in podcasts, attend conferences, and write books.  Often 'talkers' are members of some 'group' or institute.

Civilized and well bred generally.  And all their talk ends in NO ACTION.  They spin wheels.

All the while the world goes to shit and people suffer.

The civilized and well bred won't say that fundamental changes in the ways humans live are necessary to break on through to the other side.


They talk good.  It is hard to make doom pay.  You have to talk the good shit.  But they don't do shit.

[Knarf]

If oil depletion is a problem, then why the wars? We are polluting the air way more by having war, than not. Have we considered that this explosion in the middle east has nothing to do with oil? It's all about terrorism! (sarcasm)

The geopolitics involved with this conflagration is staggering. The common folk will have no idea why we are killing each other. Those with the oil do. These assets are all going into a banking system that has become a wonderland of digital connections. I think that western imperialism is going on trial soon. The global south has had it, and is on the rise.

[RE]

I think that western imperialism is going on trial soon. The global south has had it, and is on the rise.

Where would the trial be held?  Who would be put on trial?  How would the sentences be carried out?

RE

[Knarf]

The trial will be held in the minds of people around the world. The masses that have been going along with western propaganda will change their minds and see the West as the Imperialist cabal that it IS. The sentence is rejection, on all levels...especially trade.

[K-Dog]

The trial will be held in the minds of people around the world. The masses that have been going along with western propaganda will change their minds and see the West as the Imperialist cabal that it IS. The sentence is rejection, on all levels...especially trade.

I do not agree.  People don't get pissed off.  Most of the global south still just wants their piece of the action and if they were suddenly in charge all that would happen is oligarchs would have different names.

Without some sort of 'movement' that would define a new path, nothing can change.  If it could I would be into direct action and nothing else, knowing that the end result will work itself out.

But revolutions are stolen .  Direct action without a movement to define a new path is mere chaos.
.
.
.
And here I am trying to be part of that movement, and pissing in the wind.