grim news indeed

[stonehart]

No it is not. How can you (an engineer) be so foolish to say that - I thought engineers were supposed to be analytical and obsessed with detail?.... so the Sun has no part to play in this - fine switch it off mate and see what happens in 8 minutes.

Meteors and asteroids have no part to play in this? Bringing elements and large scale changes to this planet.

The Moon (the bringer of tides) has no part to play in this? Tidal power is being tested right now for energy generation. It helps animals migrate around the globe bringing food to different locations.

You really should look up once in a while.

Ok ad Hominem attacks are not really need and only seek to undermine your position.

Look the word up if you don't know what it means.

For a start we were discussing the finite availability of resources such as oil (please go back and read the posts), and pray do tell how many "Meteors and asteroids" we need to rain down on this planet to top up our supplies on a day to day basis... well? don't be absurd.

2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth. However, this does not include the small dust particles. Scientists also estimate between 36 and 166 meteorites larger than 10 grams fall to Earth per million square kilometers per year. Over the whole surface area of Earth, that translates to 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams per year. But most meteorites are too small to actually fall all the way to the surface. Estimates for the total mass of material that falls on Earth each year range from 37,000-78,000 tons. Most of this mass would come from dust-sized particles. (This study was led by P. A. Bland and was published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.)

That really amounts to sweet stuff all.

Note I was not talking about the moon or renewable resources of energy we were discussing oil which makes for 50% of our industrial and consumer energy needs.

Most energy is used in the country of origin, since it is cheaper to transport final products than raw materials. In 2008 the share export of the total energy production by fuel was: oil 50% (1,952/3,941 Mt), gas 25% (800/3,149 bcm), hard coal 14% (793/5,845 Mt) and electricity 1% (269/20,181 TWh).

old data but worth pointing out.

From 1990 to 2008 the average use of energy per person as IEA data increased 10 % and the world population increased 27 %. Regional energy use grew from 1990 to 2008: Middle East 170 %, China 146 %, India 91 %, Africa 70 %, Latin America 66 %, USA 20 %, EU-27 7 % and world 39 %

I also state in my post that there are other energy forms that could be used.

and what on earth has animal migration got to do with oil extraction efficiency and economic consequences!

I ask you just why are you posting here if you can not read the above posts and then add constructive knowledge to an argument?

Please discus and do not get personal that is not what a debate forum is about.

Are we clear on this?

 

[stonehart]

Now a debate on new forms of energy could be opened up here and I am not opposed to it... However none come close to the bang for your buck so to speak as oil can give.

Oil is an easy to use energy form that has a heck of a lot of punch packed into a small space but it comes with a long term price tag (we all know this).

what have we got that can beat it for portability and ease of use? The question is now out there .. lets look at the alternatives that we have now.. not future but now.

 

[mike]

Its not just oil either

Falling water tables are already adversely affecting harvests in some countries, including China, the world’s largest grain producer. A groundwater survey released in Beijing in August 2001 revealed that the water table under the North China Plain, which produces over half of that country’s wheat and a third of its corn, is falling faster than earlier reported. Overpumping has largely depleted the shallow aquifer, forcing well drillers to turn to the region’s deep fossil aquifer, which is not replenishable.
The survey, conducted by the Geological Environmental Monitoring Institute (GEMI) in Beijing, reported that under Hebei Province in the heart of the North China Plain, the average level of the deep aquifer was dropping nearly 3 meters (10 feet) per year. Around some cities in the province, it was falling twice as fast. He Qingcheng, head of the GEMI groundwater monitoring team, notes that as the deep aquifer is depleted, the region is losing its last water reserve—its only safety cushion.
He Qingcheng's concerns are mirrored in a World Bank report: “Anecdotal evidence suggests that deep wells [drilled] around Beijing now have to reach 1,000 meters [more than half a mile] to tap fresh water, adding dramatically to the cost of supply.” In unusually strong language for a Bank report, it foresees “catastrophic consequences for future generations” unless water use and supply can quickly be brought back into balance.

You know its serious when a bank suggests a non growth course of action

On World Population Day, 11 July, the National President of Sustainable Population Australia, said the Australian Government's announced target of a 5 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 would be 'useless' by 2020 because of Australia’s continuing population growth.​

Ms Kanck said it seemed to be beyond the intellect of both Government and Greens MPs to understand that more people means more carbon pollution.​

“Even if the government’s emissions target is met by all existing Australians, based on current rates of population growth any benefit gained will have been completely wiped out before we get to 2020," she said. ​

“It gets worse – the larger population will then have to reduce emissions by 20 per cent (instead of the 5 per cent required in 2011) to bring the total emissions back to 2011 targets, effectively to just stand still.​

“Reining in population growth is essential if any impact is to be made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the opponents of a carbon tax will make much of the fact that our electricity prices will rise by around 10% as a consequence, a much bigger contributor already to electricity prices is population increase.​

And then there is land space, I remember a David Suzuki lecture many years ago, where he suggested each person need 4 acres of farmland a year to grow the food they need.

these figures are from 2008

Total Earth's solid surface is , 57,500,000 sq mi. Now, there are 640 acres per square mile which when multiplies together =​

36,800,000,000 total acres on land to be divided up.​

Latest World census figures as of Dec. 10, 2008 = 6,867,020,300 people living on Earth as of today. Divide the acres of land by the number of people and you get = 5.36 acres of land for every single person on Earth.​

As you can see we are very close to the limit.
If you factor in land like deserts , urban housing etc that cant be used for food production that gets even tighter.
Now we can use hydroponics and desalinated water to push a little further, but the numbers show we are close if not over the limit

 

[Voyager]

Hydrogen is an option but there is no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen. There is no alternative to oil at this time. The economic system is rigged, and many of the problems with the economy are the result of greed and corruption. The economy has already imploded for many people. With all the vast resources the U.S. has why does the government borrow money from the Federal Reserve and pay interest on the debt that is created when the Treasury could create the money? Almost every country in the world has a central bank. All of these issues are complex and not easy to sort out!

 

[Wade]

i don't think that anyone would disagree with lessening our dependence on oil for energy would be a good thing, but the trouble is that oil based products are so integrated into our society to get off would require a complete do-over to civilization. i don't think we could ever get to the point of using fossil fuels on a restricted basis i.e. plastics only, as long as it's there it will be refined and developed for a multitude of uses ... on that note, does anyone know of any studies that were done showing what % of oil is used for other sources aside from energy?

 

[stonehart]

i don't think that anyone would disagree with lessening our dependence on oil for energy would be a good thing, but the trouble is that oil based products are so integrated into our society to get off would require a complete do-over to civilization. i don't think we could ever get to the point of using fossil fuels on a restricted basis i.e. plastics only, as long as it's there it will be refined and developed for a multitude of uses ... on that note, does anyone know of any studies that were done showing what % of oil is used for other sources aside from energy?

I am not sure spooky but it is worth looking up.. there has to have been one even if it is an older study.

 

[stonehart]

Its not just oil either



You know its serious when a bank suggests a non growth course of action




And then there is land space, I remember a David Suzuki lecture many years ago, where he suggested each person need 4 acres of farmland a year to grow the food they need.

these figures are from 2008



As you can see we are very close to the limit.
If you factor in land like deserts , urban housing etc that cant be used for food production that gets even tighter.
Now we can use hydroponics and desalinated water to push a little further, but the numbers show we are close if not over the limit

That is scary stuff Mike.. I knew the worlds water supplies of fresh water were getting squeezed tight but I had no idea it had gotten that bad.

 

[mike]

In China, 80 percent of the major rivers are so degraded that they no longer support fish. The Yangtze River is contaminated with 40 million tons of industrial waste and raw sewage every day, and the water in the Yellow River is so polluted that it cannot be used even for irrigation. The rainfall on the European continent is so full of toxic pesticides that much of it is too dangerous to drink​

​

​

40 million tons of industrial waste and raw sewage ....... and you wonder why they had to impose a one child policy, this is the future of the entire planet, if we dont have a good hard look at ourselves and our "growth" trends

But the banks and to a lessor degree Govts love growth, need it. Growth is profit. So in yet another example of the tragedy of the commons​

The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be overexploited or even destroyed to the detriment of all. However, since all herders reach the same rational conclusion, overexploitation in the form of overgrazing occurs

Profits are often calculated on the basis of projected growth, growth in population equals growth in demand equals growth markets.......

From the individual herder (bankers) pov Growth is good, but from the pov of the commons growth is the poison.

Now the world is so big that these conflicting povs can co exist, but only for so long.
What these reports are saying is there is not much if any road left to kick the can down

​

 

[stonehart]

Hydrogen is an option but there is no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen. There is no alternative to oil at this time. The economic system is rigged, and many of the problems with the economy are the result of greed and corruption. The economy has already imploded for many people. With all the vast resources the U.S. has why does the government borrow money from the Federal Reserve and pay interest on the debt that is created when the Treasury could create the money? Almost every country in the world has a central bank. All of these issues are complex and not easy to sort out!

Voyager has hit the nail on the head here

 

[stonehart]

In China, 80 percent of the major rivers are so degraded that they no longer support fish. The Yangtze River is contaminated with 40 million tons of industrial waste and raw sewage every day, and the water in the Yellow River is so polluted that it cannot be used even for irrigation. The rainfall on the European continent is so full of toxic pesticides that much of it is too dangerous to drink​

Now I am not going to sleep tonight Mike.. but I would sooner have the truth than a fluffy corporate proper gander video any day.

 

[Wade]

here's a little something

Petroleum-Based Products Shape Our Lives: Does that Mean We Are Irreversibly Dependent on Oil? | Sustainablog

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 35 gallons of every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil (shown in the graphic above) is used for one type of transportation fuel or another. The rest, in various other forms, is what goes into the consumer products we use on a daily basis
Source: sustainablog (http://s.tt/18GQo)

 

[stonehart]

How much oil is used to make plastic? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

In 2006,1 about 331 million barrels of liquid petroleum gases (LPG) and natural gas liquids (NGL) were used to make plastic products in the plastic materials and resins industry in the United States, equal to about 4.6% of total U.S. petroleum consumption. Of the total, 329 million barrels were used as feedstock and 2 million barrels were consumed as fuel.
LPG are by-products of petroleum refining, and NGL are removed from natural gas before it enters transmission pipelines.
In addition to petroleum, about 11 billion cubic feet of natural gas were used as feedstock and 324 billion cubic feet were burned as fuel, equal to about 1.5% of total U.S. natural gas consumption in 2006. Electricity is also used to manufacture plastic materials and resins: in 2006, about 19.2 billion kilowatt-hours, less than 1% of total U.S. electricity consumption. Only about 1.4% of the total U.S. petroleum consumed in 2006 was used to generate electricity.
EIA does not have similar data for other countries, and does not have data on the quantity of plastics materials and resins produced in the United States and in other countries or data on the origin of all the plastic products used in the United States.

EIA - Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Results

In the AEO2008 reference case, U.S. conventional crude oil production grows from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2006 to a peak of 6.3 million barrels per day in 2018, and then declines to 5.6 million barrels per day in 2030 (Figure 2 and Table 2). The shape of the U.S. production profile is largely driven by lower-48 offshore oil production, which rises from 1.4 million barrels per day in 2006 to 2.4 million barrels per day in 2015, and then falls to 1.9 million barrels per day in 2030. Lower-48 onshore oil production grows slightly through 2030 because high crude oil prices stimulate the growth in carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (EOR) production, which offsets the decline in the other lower-48 onshore oil production.

United States proven oil reserves were 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration.

This lot may help Spooky

 

[stonehart]

here's a little something

Petroleum-Based Products Shape Our Lives: Does that Mean We Are Irreversibly Dependent on Oil? | Sustainablog

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 35 gallons of every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil (shown in the graphic above) is used for one type of transportation fuel or another. The rest, in various other forms, is what goes into the consumer products we use on a daily basis
Source: sustainablog (http://s.tt/18GQo)

so according to that chart it is around 7.3% for other uses but not specifically plastics.

 

[stonehart]

Mike here is a question for you as you live in Australia .. how is your community coping with water problems and is your local government doing anything about it?

I know you guys have had some hard core droughts in the past few years.

 

[mike]

Now I am not going to sleep tonight Mike.. but I would sooner have the truth than a fluffy corporate proper gander video any day.

NZ is still one of the cleanest most pristine places left on earth, and its small enough so that imbalances stick out like a sore thumb, so managing it in a sustainable manner is easier than other places

 

[stonehart]

NZ is still one of the cleanest most pristine places left on earth, and its small enough so that imbalances stick out like a sore thumb, so managing it in a sustainable manner is easier than other places

I agree that is why I am back home living here.. I can drink the water right from the tap and it has not been processed at all.. just right from the well.
We are not so clean and green as we should be but as long as we keep fighting the government from damning our rivers much more and drilling for oil in our national parks we should be ok.

 

[mike]

Mike here is a question for you as you live in Australia .. how is your community coping with water problems and is your local government doing anything about it?

I know you guys have had some hard core droughts in the past few years.

Its a mixed bag, at the height of the last drought NSW built a desal plant, but the rains have come and the warragamba dam is full again, with flood gates being opened to let some out recently. The desal plant sits more or less idle
The murray darling river was in a bad way, with the govt purchasing back the water permits from the farms along it at great public expense, but with the recent rains its back to what it should be.

Water will continue to be a large factor in calculating Australias carrying capacity

Moreover, according to the population issues committee of the National Population Council (NPC), "there is a serious mismatch between distributions of available water supply and the population, water supply is subject to high levels of seasonal and year to year variability, the land is severely degraded, the soils thin and vulnerable to depletion" (1992, p. 41). Additionally, many species in Australia have become extinct or are threatened by the expansion of human activities in their habitats.

Population - Population Growth in Australia

 

[Wade]

NZ is still one of the cleanest most pristine places left on earth, and its small enough so that imbalances stick out like a sore thumb, so managing it in a sustainable manner is easier than other places

and if i were a kiwi, i'd be shaking in my boots right now if this fact ever became widely aware of. i'm a yank and we have some country just to the north of us ( i think it's called canada) which at one time was probably the northern hemisphere's (THE BEST HEMISPHERE !!, MIKE AND STONEHART ** can you unlike something if you don't agree with it?**version of new zealand, but what with the alberta tar sands and canadian claim and enforcement of some parts of the northwest passage (for fossil fuel claims) de is becoming more like us

 

[mike]

Ive seen some comments on other forums along the lines of "how can we use one and a half times the planet ?" some suggesting thats impossible since we only have one planet.

Water is a good example

Water resource, such as lakes and aquifers, are usually renewable resources which naturally recharge (the term fossil water is sometimes used to describe aquifers which don't recharge). Overexploitation occurs if a water resource, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, is mined or extracted at a rate that exceeds the recharge rate, that is, at a rate that exceeds the practical sustained yield. Recharge usually comes from area streams, rivers and lakes. An aquifer which has been overexploited is said to be overdrafted or depleted. Forests enhance the recharge of aquifers in some locales, although generally forests are a major source of aquifer depletion.[25] Depleted aquifers can become polluted with contaminants such as nitrates, or permanently damaged through subsidence or through saline intrusion from the ocean.
This turns much of the world's underground water and lakes into finite resources with peak usage debates similar to oil.[26][27] These debates usually centre around agriculture and suburban water usage but generation of electricity from nuclear energy or coal and tar sands mining is also water resource intensive.[28] A modified Hubbert curve applies to any resource that can be harvested faster than it can be replaced.[24] Though Hubbert's original analysis did not apply to renewable resources, their overexploitation can result in a Hubbert-like peak. This has led to the concept of peak water.

Overexploitation occurs if a water resource, is mined or extracted at a rate that exceeds the recharge rate.

Thats whats happening and where these figures come from, water is being mined at 1.5 times the rate its being put back into the aquifers. sometimes more depending on the location.

Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they struggle to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three grain producers—China, India, and the United States. These three, along with a number of other countries where water tables are falling, are home to more than half the world’s people. (See Table at end of article.)
There are two types of aquifers: replenishable and nonreplenishable (or fossil) aquifers. Most of the aquifers in India and the shallow aquifer under the North China Plain are replenishable. When these are depleted, the maximum rate of pumping is automatically reduced to the rate of recharge.
For fossil aquifers—such as the vast U.S. Ogallala aquifer, the deep aquifer under the North China Plain, or the Saudi aquifer—depletion brings pumping to an end. Farmers who lose their irrigation water have the option of returning to lower-yield dryland farming if rainfall permits. In more arid regions, however, such as in the southwestern United States or the Middle East, the loss of irrigation water means the end of agriculture.

Aquifer depletion

 

[stonehart]

and if i were a kiwi, i'd be shaking in my boots right now if this fact ever became widely aware of. i'm a yank and we have some country just to the north of us ( i think it's called canada) which at one time was probably the northern hemisphere's (THE BEST HEMISPHERE !!, MIKE AND STONEHART) version of new zealand, but what with the alberta tar sands and canadian claim and enforcement of some parts of the northwest passage (for fossil fuel claims) de is becoming more like us

lol nice.

But in all seriousness we are very aware of this right now... we have large oil interests knocking on our door as well as others who think exporting the water from Fiordland would be a great idea. not to mention the increase in people wanting to live here... yeah I think the secret is out.

If you know the area I am talking about the only way you could get the water out would be (a) pump it out via an overland pipe destroying large tracks of virgin forest in doing so .... or (b) bring ships right in there and well pollute the area that way as you would need land based infrastructure to do it.

We have a fair amount of oil down that was as well as off the east coast as well.