+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 54
Latest: abrogard
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16379
Total Topics: 268
Most Online Today: 12
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟  (Read 2340 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Carrying capacity is a function of carbon footprint in humans (unlike other non tool making species). The issue of resource depletion is not relative to our physical biomass.

//People will not give up their pickup trucks until Warren Buffett gives up his jets and multiple houses. The fact that a few of us have reduced our carbon footprint voluntarily as an act of conscience does not mean that most aren't still Bernays brainwashed.   
//The above statement is an excellent example of scientific blinders in the service of raw wealth. The hypermobility alone of these rich would skew their footprint up (lots of vehicles of all sizes) if those engaged in this study had bothered to count boats, cars, airplanes, etc.
// Every addict can go cold turkey and the pushers will adjust by giving the "drug" away really cheap until they hook a new set of addicts. Focusing on the addicts while giving lip service to the evils of the 1% to the point that the addicts are given a 40/60% (99% carbon footprint vs 1% carbon footprint) responsibility ratio in biosphere degradation when it is more like a  20/80% ratio is  just plain wrong and doomed to failure. Of course the 1% love this kind of "blame the victim" illogic.

I don't often comment on your energy analysis posts because I really don't have much to add. Just wanted to post this to tell you how much I appreciate them. You have a wealth of information and some keen analysis at the ready, as well as a good nose for bullshit, as the above post demonstrates. This great stuff, Glad you are here among us, licking the windows at the back of the Diner...

Why not turn the above into a blog article. Meanwhile, I'm posting this on the FB page.

As Willem Dafoe said to William Peterson in "To Live and Die in LA," "I like your work."

The fact that these oil energy loving F U C K S that call themselves scientists can believe it’s wrong to run your car in a garage but a mark of “advanced civilization” to do it outside is proof that they are SERIOUSLY math challenged idiots. The killer combination for mankind is a love of science and a lack of consideration about its place in the world. Have a nice day.

AMEN! :exp-angel:

Thank you. Since the post was a subset of the article, it is technically part of the main article already published but I now realize from your comment that the issue of biopshere human population carrying capacity and carbon footprint is such a bone of contention that I will have to taylor an article that focuses exclusively on those areas. 👍

Thanks. I posted a less fleshed out version of that article at The Oil Drum and they were not happy campers about it, to put it mildly.

Here's the response thread there. It just makes me tired to read how unwilling these people are to look their bias in the eye.


Richard Eis on September 4, 2012 - 9:51am 

Too long. Didn't read.
It seems the twitter curse governs even issues of life and death for the biosphere (see Chomsky on how concision truncates clear thinking and favors propaganda).
jokuhl on September 4, 2012 - 10:48am 

You seem to have useful ideas, but like Richard, I would ask you not to put in a whole chapter or a book. It's considered hogging the thread.
The use of "BS" in the first sentence also quickly made you seem fairly rude and ranting.. making it hard to take anything afterward very seriously.. though as I said, I think some of the ideas in there probably will be great to have discussions on.. just not great speeches or treatises, if you please.
As Leanan says sometimes.. 'get your own blog if you want to share that much stuff'. This is appropriately called a discussion.
This type of response masks a pedantic and dictatorial mindset. His apparent appreciaition for my ideas is a device to appear objective; his next comment (farther down towards the end)  makes that clear.

TOD Community Moderator on September 4, 2012 - 11:13am

Yes, please keep your posts a moderate length - we'll tolerate longish ones if they're nicely formatted - i.e. use your return to make clear paragraphs.

Commenters are able to edit posts until someone replies to them. If you'd like to start over and post a clearer and more concise comment, I'd be happy to hide the old one.
Best to all,


[edit - I returned to disguise profanity - we may have school age kids reading - also added para returns]
She's right. RE is always on my ass about my paragraphing problems. I just slammed that in there in an attempt to gain some readers here as per a request from RE. But again, this sort of pedantry, no matter how polite, is dancing around the meat and potatoes issues on energy that I addressed. Why didn't this moderator go read my linked articles to see where I was coming from? Pro-Oil bias. It's easier to attack the grammar than the ideas. We have all dealt with people that, to avoid discussion, correct your pronunciation (in the English language, many words have two valid pronunciations, e.g. pralines, but people use that to either locate where you grew up or correct you to win argument brownie points and avoid issue discussion). School age kids cuss more than adults do. Is she kidding? No, just being pedantic. Leanan has already made clear to RE that she won't post our articles there so I had to give it the old college try to see if a few with two neurons still rubbing together successfully would come over here.
agelbert on September 6, 2012 - 9:23pm
Very well. Let me discuss some facts in a profanity free manner. The above article was admittedly long and not fully fleshed out. I did so at the Doomstead Diner that posted the article today.
This is a very brief summary of the problems we face and I feel are, at best, insufficiently addressed or ,at worst, ridiculed in sites like this that display a bias towards petroleum products:
CH4 + 2O2 ---> 2H2O + CO2
 Burning hydrocarbons is trouble for planet Earth's biosphere.

The absorption of terrestrial radiation is dominated by triatomic molecules – O3 in the UV, H2O, CO2 and others in the IR because it so happens that triatomic molecules have rotational and vibrational modes that can easily be excited by radiation with wavelengths in the IR.The Earth radiates energy away at the same rate as it is received from the Sun. The Earth's emission temperature is 255K; that of the Sun, 6000K. The outgoing terrestrial radiation peaks in the infrared; the incoming solar radiation peaks at shorter wavelengths, in the visible.

The emission of terrestrial radiation is a function of the Earth's radiative temperature. Earth radiates in the IR band. Therefore even a tiny addition of triatomic molecules such as CO2 and H2O will result in a powerful positive feedback mechanism. Burning hydrocarbons destabilizes Earth's radiative equilibrium profile. It is irresponsible for the petroleum industry to pretend otherwise.
Published EROI studies at The Oil Drum such (Hall) pretend the application of science and mathematics to determine energy return on energy invested. However, in thermodynamics, applying the law of conservation of energy to determine enthalpy is only half the picture. You must also compute entropic effects as well. That is, you must take the energy density per mole and determine how much WORK it can accomplish in the real world. Hall and associates fail to do that. If they had done this for ethanol vs gasoline, they would find that the higher octane ethanol is a better fuel for the ICE (internal combustion engine) than than gasoline. All you need to do to get equivalent mileage per gallon or litre is to burn the ethanol in a high compression engine. This was proven as far back as 1906 in Edison Labs research funded by the US Navy (Google it!).

Furthermore, ethanol does not require a catalytic converter so the entropy is decreased and overall energy output in the form of mechanical WORK is increased. The rabbit hole on ethanol is deep and goes back to Rockefeller gifting religious fundamentalist organizations with millions of dollars to get Prohibition passed. I don't believe it is any coincidence that less than a year after Prohibition destroyed ethanol (it became illegal, not just to drink, but to produce and use as fuel) as a competitor to gasoline, the Tetra Ethyl Lead poison additive to gasoline increased its octane rating to a level comparable with ethanol. You know how tetra ethyl lead ended up being banned for the horrible effects on humans and other life forms.
Petroleum energy's ultimate source is the sun, not an oil drum or a well. Why then, is your site named "The Oil Drum" instead of "The Sustainable Sun"? Why the "Drumbeat" campy title for an energy discussion forum instead of the "PhotonBeat"? Because you suffer from endowment bias. This is unscientific in a site that claims they back up everything they say with science. Politicized EROI formulas neglecting real world application efficiencies and entropy in order to make petroleum products look favorable is flawed science.

We address this issue in detail at the Doomstead Diner web site. Our motto is "Save as many as you can". There is no censorship. People that don't properly reference their ideas with scientifically proven facts are not banned but are identified as pushing opinions as facts. Anyone that questions facts, as those I have just stated above, by claiming they are opinion with pejorative remarks like "this is speculative and not real world" must show some facts to back up their assertions besides unethical debating tactics (e.g. my resume is bigger than yours).

Learn what a proper formulation of the EROI formula should be composed of free from propaganda, politics and the petroleum profit motive.

Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear fuels never did

Carbon Footprint and how the 1% skew the per capita numbers in the USA (Joe 6 pack uses much less energy than is claimed) is discussed, among other subjects of interest to Oil Drum readers, here:

Sexual Dimorphism, PowerStructures and Environmental Consequences of Human Behaviors

Unlike most sites, the comments on these articles do not get shelved or disappeared into dusty archives. The thread is preserved and you can read through the whole thing. You can tear the articles to pieces and use profanity if you wish to accentuate your prose. As long as you don't conflate opinion with facts and vice versa, you will be listened to. Come one, come all and show us your debating skills.

Richard Eis on September 7, 2012 - 5:07am

Petroleum energy's ultimate source is the sun, not an oil drum or a well. Why then, is your site named "The Oil Drum" instead of "The Sustainable Sun"?

Oil has not been sunlight for millions of years and went through several different processes between then and now. Endowment bias? Really?
All you need to do to get equivalent mileage per gallon or litre is to burn the ethanol in a high compression engine.
Compressing a fuel doesn't change the fact that you still need more of it than gasoline to run your engine (nearly 40% more apparently). Considering that this fuel source is usually taken from our food stocks, this is never going to be a "good" solution regardless of how you play with the EROI.

The poster finds it unreasonable for me to claim the blog expresses pro-oil bias with its title because the sun produced oil carbon sequestering (he doesn't seem to know that petroleum deposit creation is a mechanism scientists have proven is a temperature regulation biosphere mechanism) occurred millions of years ago but appears quite comfortable with the totally irrational mindset that burning something that took millions of years to create in a space of 150 years or so is rational.  :BangHead:

Notice the incorrect statement about compressing fuel. This is false. Fuel economy is identical. Changing the compression RATIO of an ICE does not change the AMOUNT of fuel to achieve a given amount of mechanical work. This is disngenuous bullshit.  I advocate that HALL and associates are the ones playing with the EROI formula and the debater claims I am the one wanting to "play" with it. Again, if they would bother to go to the "behemoth" (see Ashvin and Ilargi) discussion of EROI in my renewables article they would see the US Government references that prove HALL is the one playing to keep oil looking better than ethanol.

The "taking energy products from foodstuffs" tradoff is big oil propaganda. I discuss that in a response to Mark_BC who brings up the same, invalid, point. Corn ethanol was set up to fail. It is one of the WORST biomass products that could have been chosen for biofuels because it requires soil tilling, chemical fertilizers and pesticides". It was wrongheaded from the start; set up to fail. The US oil oligarchy in action.
Nick on September 7, 2012 - 9:38am 

Compressing a fuel doesn't change the fact that you still need more of it than gasoline to run your engine (nearly 40% more apparently).

Actually, it does. Raising compression ratios increases efficiency. Audi has reduced the ethanol penalty to 12%.

At last. One person dealing with thermodynamic truth and objective scientific facts. I hope Nick makes it over. There is actually an energy "penalty" from burning gasoline (catalytic converters - poisonous exhaust fumes - global warming) but at least  Nick is thinking.

Richard Eis on September 7, 2012 - 2:24pm 

12% down from 40% is pretty good. What's the energy loss from compressing the fuel though? That probably won't be a huge factor but it would be a nice to know.

Nick on September 7, 2012 - 3:22pm 

What's the energy loss from compressing the fuel though?
Hard to tell - the compression happens during the engine combustion cycle, so the energy output is a net figure.

They need to read the linked articles but they are, apparantly, two twittered to be throrough. Hell, just doing some Google research on ethanol vs gasoline, enthalpy and mechanical work from both would give them their answer (along with some easily disprovable -no sources, just talk- pro-gasolene PR).

Now, good old BOB doesn't seem to like the direction the "energy" discussion is going with the ethanol heresy so here comes the petroleum calavary to the rescue of mendacity in the service of oil (i.e. it's time to attack the mesenger in order to discredit the argument!).

Richard Eis on September 7, 2012 - 5:16am

Petroleum energy's ultimate source is the sun, not an oil drum or a well. Why then, is your site named "The Oil Drum" instead of "The Sustainable Sun"?
 Oil has not been sunlight for millions of years and went through several different processes between then and now. Endowment bias? Really?
 All you need to do to get equivalent mileage per gallon or litre is to burn the ethanol in a high compression engine.
 Compressing a fuel doesn't change the fact that you still need more of it than gasoline to run your engine (nearly 40% more apparently). Considering that this fuel source is usually taken from our food stocks, this is never going to be a "good" solution regardless of how you play with the EROI.


jokuhl on September 7, 2012 - 11:32am 

 Seeing that you're really here to push the Doomstead diner, is it really necessary to toss in snyde remarks about the site that is hosting this comment? You may have seen some recent threads where many posters here have expressed their gratitude for having a site which keeps high standards of both civility and supported arguments. It's far from perfect, but it's very good compared to anything else I've seen online.
I may peek in to DD at some point, but even without profanity, your tone upstages your points, and I see no reason amongst the ideas you've presented for expecting to have a fruitful discussion over there.

After the initial responses asking for less than a chapter, it might have been more useful to pick a single idea you want to take on, such as EROEI, and let that issue go forward conversationally. (unless it's really off-topic to the thread, which we've now pretty much become..) But it doesn't seem like that's what you're here for. It IS what I am here for.
I think I know what BOB is there for; it sure as hell is not an objective discussion of energy, thermodynamics or EROI. His deliberate respelling of EROI to EROEI (both acronyms are used by wikipeda and Hall to mean the same thing) is more evidence of pedantic pissantry. BOB LIKES the current EROI "formulation". That's what BOB is all about. If he had bothered to read the "Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear feils never did", he would understand that the ENTIRE THRUST OF THE ARTICLE was a detailed deconstruction of EROI formulation! You CANNOT do that "conversationally" in a forum thread. He just does not want to go there. 

BlueTwilight on September 7, 2012 - 8:47pm

Written by agelbert:
 CH4 + 2O2 ---> 2H2O + CO2
 Burning hydrocarbons is trouble for planet Earth's biosphere.
Burning large amounts of fossil hydrocarbons is trouble for Earth's biosphere. Reverse the reaction:
2H2O + CO2 + energy ---> CH4 + 2O2
The energy could come from sunlight. It is easier to store methane than hydrogen.
Another fellow with his thinking cap on. RE is right. There are a few over there that aren't lost to big oil. What BlueTwilight just did is define renewable energy from photosynthesis or some other CO2 + H2O chemical process. I hope he comes over.

Nick on September 7, 2012 - 9:48pm 

Are you thinking of utility-scale energy storage?
Nick is thinking. I hope he comes over here to see that decentralized, rather than utility scale renewable is the only viable answer although utitlity scale does have a role in that picture.

I wish I could say I am geting more optimistic. Im not. It was all I could do to just get out of bed today. I just learned hose FUC KING Russians have been dumping radioactive waste in the arctic ocean for DECADES! Scientists at the cryosphere web site are scratching their heads wondering why the ocean bordering Siberia has such an unusually high temperature. Word is out that there is a nuclear sub the Russians scuttled in the 80s (with nuclear fuel in it) that may rupture now. Some say it is in danger of exploding. I don't know but does it really matter? Radionuclide contamination aside for a moment, this stuff puts out unending HEAT. Man, we are SO ****.

Evolution of sea surface temperatures in August
East Siberian and Chukchi seas on August 5, 2012. SSTs were as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal along the coastal areas in those seas.

Old ice continues to decline

CFS has left the human society "building"http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
July 27, 2021, 12:44:32 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 07:32:32 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 06:25:17 pm

Renewable Hydrogen Power by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 05:16:13 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 04:19:45 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 04:00:48 pm

Sustainable Cities by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 12:51:24 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
July 23, 2021, 04:22:19 pm

U.S State Politics by AGelbert
July 22, 2021, 03:22:33 pm

Special Sensory Perception by AGelbert
July 22, 2021, 02:01:15 pm