Change the world, a whole program. By JM Jancovici

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 13/04/12, 12:11

Remundo wrote:
Should not mix peak oil (natural oil), and peak fuel (what is it a new concept?)

Yes, there is a weak nuance: there are many "peaks" ... the conventional liquid peak, the all liquid peak including the unconventional ones, the peaks all hydrocarbons combined ...

But, well, that does not fundamentally change the problem.


If you count everything that can make fuel, it changes the game considerably.
For the forecasts of the peak of oil, they are just, and we are at the dawn of a new era ... of war!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 13/04/12, 13:47

We can make oil with any carbon stuff, like CH4 and coal, at a price that depends mainly on the will to do so given the vastness of the current technological possibilities with 99,9% not used !!!

Abiotic oil is real for good basic chemical sense reasons !!!
The CH4 under high pressure and catalyst minerals, as underground, ends up in oil !!!!!! (see the Russians and much more real than the perpetual movements) !!!
There are 600 millions of years of underground accumulation in reserve and what to multiply by 10 CO2, as 56 million years ago during the separation, North America of Europe !!

With the peak oil, you are victims of a huge manipulation !!!

Finally, we will miss well before metals, essential, clear with the copper that has seen its price explode much more than that of oil!

And it's not over !!
Until we develop a profitable extraction of poor ores, such as seawater !!! Also, a certainty.




And we will be a victim
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 13/04/12, 13:58

The traumatized Japanese doubly no longer agree with Jancovici:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20120413_01.html

Greenhouse gases can be cut without nuclear energy

A panel of experts at Japan 's Environment Ministry says greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by drastically increasing the use of renewable energy.

The government's mid-term target calls for cuts cuts by the same percentage but by 2020.

After the Fukushima nuclear accident last year, the government said it wants to reduce reliance on nuclear energy and work on anti-global warming measures at the same time.

The government tasked with the ministry's expert panel with anti-global warming measures, including a review of the mid-term target.

The panel estimated how much greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by 2030 from 1990 levels.

The panel says that even without relying on nuclear energy 25-percent cut is possible by increasing the adoption of renewable energy and energy-saving measures.

Friday, April 13, 2012 06: 38 + 0900 (JST)


And they will prove it in their action by selling us renewable Asian !!
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 13/04/12, 13:59

sen-no-sen wrote:If you count everything that can make fuel, it changes the game considerably.

In the total production spread and technically possible, yes, in the total production per year and economically possible, no.

Because of the great technical difficulty and the related costs of doing GTL (gas to liquid) or CTL (coal to liquid)

For the GTL, the hydrocarbon chains are too short, it is necessary to reform, for the CTL, it is the opposite: crack the chains.

it is not easy (large processing and refining plants), it is even expensive in energy.

If the GTL / CTL came to be significant in the mix of petroleum liquids, it would be very ominous (huge price / L and end of the homo sapiens petroleumensis) ... by the way a consequent global warming and potentially a transition highly compromised energy.

@+
0 x
Image
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 13/04/12, 14:07

dedeleco wrote:We can make oil with any carbon stuff, like CH4 and coal, at a price that depends mainly on the will to do so given the vastness of the current technological possibilities with 99,9% not used !!!


We can very well make fuel with plants (agro-fuels), algae (alguo-fuels) coal (the Germans made it during the Second World War).

However, when we speak of "peak oil" it is referring to oil reserves. naturally available.

The means mentioned above require expensive technical means in infrastructure and have largely questionable returns.
Outside, in the current logic of exponential economic growth, only a resource available in mass and low cost is of particular interest.
Oil has the advantage of being easily extractable and transportable at will, it is easily convertible into different products, it is for this reason that it is of such interest.

Abiotic oil is real for good basic chemical sense reasons

Theory of the 50 years ...
The possibility of abiotic oil is conceivable, but in deplorable quantity, and it is only a question of supposition!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 13/04/12, 14:09

We use a lot of everyday items that were initially at impossible prices (pipes 300 years ago, only lead in Versailles, powerful computer, the microwave oven, LCD screen, etc. ..), and therefore this cost excessive can be decreased with certainty, if one is motivated, because possible !!
And it will be !!!

The possibility of abiotic oil is conceivable, but in deplorable quantity, and it is only a question of supposition!

Well no, see the scientific studies, and the proof, the quantity of oil everywhere to the point that we must fight not to see oil fields everywhere in the Mediterranean, in France, for example, etc.

http://www.notre-planete.info/
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 13/04/12, 14:15

dedeleco wrote:We use a lot of everyday items that were initially at impossible prices (pipes 300 years ago, only lead in Versailles, powerful computer, the microwave oven, LCD screen, etc. ..), and therefore this cost excessive can be decreased with certainty, if one is motivated, because possible !!
And it will be !!!


And so?
To continue in endless "extractivism" is sheer madness.
What is interesting in Janco's intervention is that he has the honesty to say that growth is over, and that the future will be more people to sweat in the fields and fewer people in the offices!

Do not deny peak oil ... that would not be negationism? :) : Mrgreen:
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dirk pitt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2081
Registration: 10/01/08, 14:16
Location: isere
x 68




by dirk pitt » 13/04/12, 14:51

dede, in spite of your already big age, there is a good chance that you live the decline of the production of oil.
today, we are a priori a few by on the kind of "wavy plateau" at the top of the peak.
the graph below shows you why the end-of-sixties forecasts gave a peak in 2000. Consumption trend before 1973 did not continue. this trend can still change without changing much to the global form of world production if it is not to shift the maxi of a few years.
Image
0 x
Image
Click my signature
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 13/04/12, 15:11

dedeleco wrote:
The possibility of abiotic oil is conceivable, but in deplorable quantity, and it is only a question of supposition!

Well no, see the scientific studies, and the proof, the quantity of oil everywhere to the point that we must fight not to see oil fields everywhere in the Mediterranean, in France, for example, etc.

http://www.notre-planete.info/


What evidence?
Abiotic oil theories are considered by most (99,9%) geologists to be invalid.
Pockets of abiotic oils "could" exist in minimal quantities ...

The oil fields you mention are fields that were totally ignored in years of abundance, since the operating costs were not profitable.

Now the so-called "unconventional" oils, because located at very great depths, or in the form of shales, are economically viable, hence the appearance of "discoveries", which hardly represents much in the overall purpose. .

It is quite curious to see that you easily treat others negationism even if you deny even scientific realities!
As the children say:it is he who says it is!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 13/04/12, 15:33

We live mainly a warming which will be the main problem, with inexorable rise of the level of the seas of 20m in the millennia future with our current CO2 and the peak of fuels is not visible, just change of uses of different types as in the past.

We see especially a peak of copper and precious metals, much faster.

We will be blocked for everything that will be electric well before!


We never did as many CO2 as last year in an accelerated way!

The theories of abiotic oil are considered by most (99,9%) geologists to be invalid


There are more than 60 years ago most geologists said the same, invalid for continental drift, despite indisputable evidence almost obvious, with Wegener !!
Gosse, I still remember, having read at the end of the course chapter, a few lines on Wegener, and remained very frustrated at the impossibility of knowing more about these essential and forgotten facts in the course of geography !!

The fashion of a moment is not a proof, only the facts are proof.

The solar system and therefore the earth are stuffed with H of C, iron and so that is enough to fill us with a heap of CH4 and abiotic oil, in proportion, hemi which is enormous compared to what we need, (like the oxygen of the air), and that light goes up towards the surface, with the iron descending towards the nucleus of the ground (with copper also rare on the surface !!) !!!
Titan is stuffed with CH4, liquid seas !!
The earth has kept too !!
And it is an absurdity to say that this lode does not exist underground going back to the surface, CH4 and oil by natural catalysis in very high pressure, at high temperature with catalyst minerals, underground, of all kinds!

CQFD basic good sense as for Wegener !!
0 x

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 108 guests