FromSubject
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Science vs. Mysticism
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Science vs. Mysticism
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Net energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Energy Game
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Hydrogen Yields?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] More rigs give more oil?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Fwd: Re: [energyresources] Net energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Net energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Fwd: Re: [energyresources] Net energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Net energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Harry Parker: After petroleum is gone,
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Hydrogen in earth deep underground
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Hydrogen to the Rescue
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] "Scenarios" for the "decline"
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] New tech solar cells
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Something worth watching?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Eureka! An Epiphany!
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: A modest proposal from the brigadier
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Eureka! An Epiphany!
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] A modest proposal from the brigadier
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Suit against EIA and USGS (was Eureka)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Eureka! An Epiphany!
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Closed Coffin, article from Michael C.
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] oops
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: Fw: [energyresources] Gas depletion
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Clarification to Marvin about oil
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Why so negative??
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Gas depletion
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: World oil peaked in 2000 ... C.
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Yahoo's proposal for paying vs. free
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] A couple of questions for all of you.
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Technology Review/Limits to Growth
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: UCR....and subsidies
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: UCR....and subsidies
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: UCR....and subsidies
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Oil Bust/Boom Cycle (cont'd)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Potential for UCR: Sperm oil crisis
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Potential for Unconventional
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Potential for Unconvential Petroleum....
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Potential for Unconvential Petroleum....
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Limits to Growth
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Unbelievable Tinkerbelleism
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Fwd: [RunningOnEmpty2] Hybrid cars and vehicle fees in
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Scary thought
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Goodbye, though not so good....
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Mike Ruppert is Deluged with
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Perilous Optimism-Entropy-Order
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: Re: [energyresources] Mike Ruppert is Deluged with
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: Re: [energyresources] Mike Ruppert is Deluged with
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Yesterday, Today and Tommorrow --Was
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Entropy web sites
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Perilous Optimism-Entropy-Order
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] EROEI perspective
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Efficient computation of embodied
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Efficient computation of embodied
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Efficient computation of embodied
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Efficient computation of embodied energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Efficient computation of embodied energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Efficient computation of embodied energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Energy efficiency
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Embedded Energy Diagram
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Energy efficiency and EROEI
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Energy efficiency and EROEI forecasting
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Energy sources
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Energy efficiency and EROEI forecasting
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Oldest North Sea oil field to start
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] EROEI perspective
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Book on net energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Net Energy (again)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] EROEI an explanation
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Heat
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Net energy (again... 2)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Net energy (again... 2)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Heat
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] David Fleming -- The great oil denial
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Market fundamentalists deny the environment
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Other recent examples of
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>RE: [energyresources] Future energy resources
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Other recent examples of "scientific
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re:The Law of Entropy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Alaskan Oil Production
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Even Lomborg's Critics Agree With Him On
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Impact of technology
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Out on an oil price limb
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re:The Law of Entropy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re:The Law of Entropy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Immigration, lifeboats, and denial
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Our "deeply psychological" flaw is
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Clarification please
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Indirect energy inputs and EROEI--was Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Indirect energy inputs and EROEI--was Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Correction: Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Economist Article
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] David Fleming's After Oil
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] David Fleming's After Oil
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Matthew Simmons and Limits to Growth
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] LLNL Energy Flow Charts
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Matthew R. Simmons
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Matthew Simmons and Limits to Growth
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Nuclear Power
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] North Sea Capable of 50% More, Says Oil
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] More on new thermoelectric devices
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Thermal Electric May Be Alternative
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Latest from Matt Simmons
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: hemp energy - more numbers
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: hemp energy - more numbers
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: The price of oil and where are we
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Water: Salty & Not
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Water: Salty & Not
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Fwd: Raspberry Column
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: A Lot of Gas but not in Canada
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Energy Summary
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Energy Summary
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Questions and Observations on U.S.
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: A Lot of Gas but not in Canada
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: A Lot of Gas but not in Canada
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Fw: [PGP-Discuss] Fwd: [environment]
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Corporations are unsustainable (was Energy Giant Shell
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Dismissive review of Deffeyes's "Hubbert's Peak"
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Smallpox vaccine (was War in Afghanistan)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Jet fuel energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] False Dawn Plus
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] False Dawn Plus
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] why?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] For John Gray fans- Globalisation Era
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Deffeyes's "Hubbert's Peak"
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Why EROI is not always important
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] China / Tibet Oil - Does It Matter ?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] PV data
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] China / Tibet Oil - Does It Matter ?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: DepletionRates.XLS
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] False Dawn Author, John Gray in the
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Accurate Net Energy Analysis - Is it
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Re: [RunningOnEmpty] RE: Lynch: "reserves" is not "discovery"
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Canadian Business, August 20 Cover
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Importance of Alaskan Gas?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Canadian Business, August 20 Cover
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>RE: [energyresources] Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] [Fwd: Nuclear Power]
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Fw: Demand Side Management
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Conservation and efficiency
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>RE: [energyresources] Re: Fw: Demand Side Management
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] oil supply forecasting
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Syncrude energy use and CO2 emissions
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Syncrude energy use and CO2 emissions
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Forecasting Oil Supply
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] The potential of wind energy.
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] National Energy Policy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Macros to Eliminate Line Feeds
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Can Water be used as Fuel?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Iraq knows that US knows about shortage of OPEC excess capacity
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] CBC Radio Program: Fuelling the Future
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Canada is not a quick fix for US energy problems
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] another phantom crisis report
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] another phantom crisis report
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Nuclear Power's New Day
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Letter to Susan Riley, Ottawa Citizen
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] PV
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Usefulness, cross posting, broadening agenda
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: PV one more time...
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: caloric payback for PV
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] caloric payback for PV
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Re: First law, second law (was SONGS3)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] First law, second law (was SONGS3)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] First law, second law (was SONGS3)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Re: Still More on San Onofre Nuke
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Saunders's Solar Houses
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Re: Solar Hot Water at 40 below?
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Evaluating nukes as offset to declining oil
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: Olduvai Cliff Revisited
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Breeder Reactor Net Energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>RE: [energyresources] Jay's 30 kWh per day
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Breeder Reactor Net Energy
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>RE: [energyresources] nukes (American natural gas)
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: planetary triage
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Political Action
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Political Action
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] The high school kids waste-cooking-oils-to-biodiesel project and Hoof and Mouth Disease
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Re: PV facts
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Measures of merit for PV
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: PV facts
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: PV facts
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>RE: [energyresources] Re: PV facts
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>[energyresources] Oil sands
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: PV facts
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Re: PV facts
David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>Re: [energyresources] Definitions, and the role of sicence in a conversation and in life.




To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:42:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Science vs. Mysticism

At 10:01 PM 5/9/02, szoraster wrote:

>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney wrote:
>
> > They leave out the fact that the
> > economy is a part of the finite environment, and
> > needs services from the environment which may be
> > damaged by economic activity.
>
>In a world of infinite resources there would be no
>need to study economics. In fact, in one way or
>another the whole study of economics involves the
>how or why of making decisions about scarce
>resources, ....

Acknowledging the finitude of the environment leads
immediately to two questions: 1) "How much of the
environment should the economy be allowed to use
up?, and 2) How can we insure the economy uses up
no more of the environment than it should?". I
challenge you to find any economist among the
overwhelming ruling majority who takes these
questions seriously. Instead, they focus on the
price movements of the things we extract from the
environment. They fail the elementary ecological
intelligence question, "How do market prices of
environmental inputs measure changes in the
capacity of the environment to support us?"
Correct answer: "They don't, until the feedback
signal they give is too late to prevent
irreversible damage much greater than that already
experienced."

>>They assume that natural resources and human
>>capital investment are interchangeable.
>
>They think that many resources are
>interchangeable, each with its unique costs.

They do much more than this, they assume that
there is always an interchangeable alternative
with a cost that produces a "reasonable" supply
curve.

>>These mistakes are fundamental.
>
>They would be if they were real.
>
>>They permit a conclusion that economic growth can
>>persist forever.
>
>Maybe you could quote me a "real" economist who
>says this?

Julian Simon is one of the few who dares to state
and support the consequences of the assumptions I
pointed out. Others choose not to contemplate
obviously crazy consequences, but continue to rely
on the crazy assumptions that generate them.
Here's one of Dr. Simon's many notorious
assertions, this one from Simon, J., The State of
Humanity: Steadily Improving, Cato Policy Report,
Vol. 17, No. 5, p. 131, September / October 1995.

"We have in our hands now - actually in our
libraries - the technology to feed, clothe and
supply energy to an ever-growing population for
the next 7 billion years ..."

>>To see that this conclusion is absurd does not
>>require following the economists' ratiocinations.
>>They are blind to the absurdity because of their
>>ideological commitments.
>
>What "ideological commitments"? To Marxist theory?
>Neo-Marxist theory? Monetarism? Keynesian?
>Neo-Walrasian? The Austrian school?

I was referring to the ideology of the ruling
majority of economists: the doctrine that
deregulation, privatization, "free" markets, free
capital movement, free trade, and perpetual
growth, will provide peace and plenty for all--
the doctrine quite properly called "market fundamentalism".

David Delaney, Ottawa, 45N 75W




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com,energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 13:06:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Science vs. Mysticism

At 10:42 AM 5/9/02, szoraster wrote:

[Responding to a comment by Tom Robertson]

><snip>
>Your emphasis on thermodynamics is interesting. I
>guess that means that mathematicians aren't
>scientists?
><snip>
>I'll leave it to someone else to explain it to the
>King of Sweden that economics isn't a science.
><snip>

I would make the following comment without wanting
to join a debate about whether economics is
science.

Economists do not go wrong because they use
mathematics. They go wrong because the assumptions
to which they apply their mathematics leave out
too much reality. They leave out the second law of
thermodynamics. They leave out the fact that the
economy is a part of the finite environment, and
needs services from the environment which may be
damaged by economic activity. They assume that
natural resources and human capital investment are
interchangeable. These mistakes are fundamental.
They permit a conclusion that economic
growth can persist forever. To see that this
conclusion is absurd does not require following
the economists' ratiocinations. They are
blind to the absurdity because of their
ideological commitments.

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: Htoeco@aol.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:31:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Net energy

At 10:30 AM 5/3/02, Htoeco@aol.com wrote:

>HT Odum 2nd reply to ddelaney May 3 2002
><snip>
>You propose to store a lot of the emergy of
>presently available fossil fuels in high quality
>infrastructure (especially solar photovoltaic
>technology)? Then you ask if the electrical
>quality exergy(electric power) from this structure
>after fossil fuels might be enough to support
>maintenance and replacements needed after PV
>deterioration.

Exactly. It is conceivable that the transformities
of fossil fuels are much larger than the
transformities of fuels created from PV output
energy *in an economy powered entirely by PV*.

The transition to such an economy might require a
very large investment of high-transformity fossil fuels
in order to leap the *transformity gap*. Just
after the leap, new and replacement parts
would be constructed with PV-derived fuels. We
might calculate the transformities of such fuels
by assuming they were created in a purely
PV-based economy of long existence. If *treating*
the PV based fuels in this way results in an
indication of sustainability, then the economy is
in fact sustainable, even though the economy was
constructed recently with (since abandoned) fossil
fuels.

><snip>
>Your model might be simulated for comparison to
>see if massive PV installation is a good strategy
>for the prosperous way down (even if not
>permanently sustainable).

I do not have the facilities for such a
simulation. Do you know someone who would like to
undertake such a project?

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W







Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:02:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Energy Game

At 06:53 AM 5/9/02, Andrew MacKillop wrote:

>Now wouldnt it be true that falling energy
>availability immediately disadvantages larger
>entities and favors smaller entities (population
>groups, energy systems, economic production and
>distribution) ?
>
>Isnt the entropy function going to hit bigger,
>spread out, more transport-dependent entities more
>than smaller entities ? 'Small Is Beautiful', or
>at least lower energy.

Unfortunately, the growth enthusiasts are
arranging the disappearance of all small
entities.

The extreme specialization of unrestrained
capitalism is creating a world in which nothing
works without everything else, nowhere works
without everywhere else.

Everything we use or consume comes from great
distances. No place in the world retains the
competence for isolated survival. Most farmers
would starve quickly if the cities became
disorganized.

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 00:07:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Hydrogen Yields?

At 05:34 PM 5/7/02, Ted Swarts wrote:
>David Baerwald asked:
>
> > ... how much hydrogen can be
>
> > gained using solar production methods,
>
> > from, say, a gallon of seawater?

Burning H2 in O2 to yield water produces
approximately 120 MJ per kg of H2 burned. (1997
ASHRAE Fundamentals, p. 17.3 Table 4) This means that
at least somewhat more than 120 MJ per kg of
product H2 are required to split water into H2 and
O2. This is independent of the "technology" by which
the water is split. ("At least" from the first law,
"somewhat more" from the second law.)

Note the electricity used for electrolysis is
pure exergy while the energy yield from burning
the hydrogen is in the form of heat.

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 14:29:04 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] More rigs give more oil?

At 06:37 AM 5/5/02, Frith, Denis wrote:

>The other aspect of this question, the misleading
>use of EROEI, pertains to the use of renewable
>sources of energy, like the flow of solar energy.
><snip>
>Consequently it should not be included in
>the embedded energy of a net energy analysis for a
>renewable energy system.

The reason the energy of sunlight should be
excluded from energy invested in solar energy
devices is that it's not invested energy. Energy
is invested only if we would have used it as energy for
some other purpose if we had not invested it.

>Most net energy analyses do include it, for some
>unfathomable reason.

I'm not aware of anyone who does this.

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W

~~~~~~~~~~ Moderator comment ~~~~~~~~~~~

You wouldn't beleive how many times we find folks carrying on this silly business of counting the energy in the resource as a part energy cost of making that energy available.

If one were a God, and wondering how well your universe's resources were being used, it may make sense to count such things, and even then, I am not so sure.

However, for us humans, the main reason we do analysis of energy returned on energy invested is to get a more or less value-free indication of the relative physical/ecological merit of diverse energy resource technology over others, so we can make decisions regarding the more likely contribution such resources bring to our (always more or less competitive) enterprises.

When you do see someone trying to include the total resource flow along with the energy cost of its extraction, crank up your objectivity antennae a bit and try to see what they are hustling--it will surely be something and most often they are trying to confuse rather than be clear about what is involved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tom Robertson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 10:58:03 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Re: [energyresources] Net energy

Dr. Odums next reply.

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W

>From: Htoeco@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:30:34 EDT
>Subject: Re: [energyresources] Net energy
>To: ddelaney@sympatico.ca
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147
>
>HT Odum 2nd reply to ddelaney May 3 2002
>Yes the discussion group should be interested in our discussion of your
>hypothesis. You are welcome to pass my comments on (However, sometimes Tom
>Robertson blocks emergy discussions on line).
>Lets see if I understand your very interesting question?
>You propose to store a lot of the emergy of presently available fossil fuels
>in high quality infrastructure (especially solar photovoltaic technology)?
>Then you ask if the electrical quality exergy(electric power) from this
>structure after fossil fuels might be enough to support maintenance and
>replacements needed after PV deterioration. We need a good calculation with
>factual data on depreciation rates. (The solar cells I used in our rainforest
>project in Puerto Rico lost much of their output in 3 years--Manufacturers
>claim much longer lives now. Our calculations so far don't show enough net
>emergy in 15 years from a PV to replace itself.
>We have simulated a lot of overview models of civilization in relation to fu
>els use.(Two are in Chapter 13 of my Environmental Accounting book, but they
>don't include PVs). The controlling rate in these simulations is the
>depreciation rate of civilization--represented by the shared information
>which may have turnover times of 100 years or more (compared to photovoltaics
>turnover time of 20 years?). Your model might be simulated for comparison to
>see if massive PV installation is a good strategy for the prosperous way down
>(even if not permanently sustainable). Best wishes



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 10:54:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Net energy

My reply to Dr. Odum's reply to my question:

>Dear Dr. Odum,
>
>Thanks for the response.
>
>At 11:13 PM 5/2/02, you wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 5/2/02 05:33:36 PM, ddelaney@sympatico.ca writes:
>><< Why could a society not leap over the transformity
>>gap by making a huge investment of fossil energy
>>in PV construction and deployment?
>> >>
>>HTOdum replies:
>>Society does contribute from fossil fuels, which
>>makes the net emergy ratio less than one.
>
>Yes, I do understand that. The very high transformities of
>these fuels practically guarantees it.
>
>>Net emergy ratio = EROI = (Emergy yield)/(emergy from
>>society)
>
>I understand this definition.
>
>>Or in other words the net emergy from the solar
>>technology is negative: net emergy contribution =
>>(Emergy Yield minus Emergy from society).
>
>Yes. I do understand this.
>
>>Green plants do generate positive net emergy by
>>collecting the solar energy in steps starting with
>>green chlorplast photovoltaics then converging to
>>stems and trunks to make wood. High density wood
>>has been collected to a central power plant, for
>>example at Jari Brazil-a case which we evaluated.
>>My point is that these biomass systems are
>>probably the best that can be achieved from
>>inherently dilute solar energy. Technological
>>photovoltaics have a long way to go to be
>>equivalent.
>
>Hmmm.... I don't understand how your answer is
>responsive to my question.
>
>Let me try again. The negative net eMergy of PV is
>due to the high transformities of the fossil fuels
>used to construct the PV equipment, including all
>of the social and industrial infrastructure, and
>services, supporting the construction activity.
>Consider the following thought experiment.
>
>Suppose that we made a huge energy investment of
>fossil fuel in the deployment of PV--an investment
>sufficient to supply an amount of PV power
>somewhat greater than the power use of society
>before we started constructing the PV. The seJ cost
>of this power is very high due to the large seJ
>cost of the fossil fuel used to construct the PV.
>Now we stop using fossil fuels altogether. Call the point
>in time at which we cease using fossil fuels t0.
>After t0, we have a power source for
>society somewhat greater than the one we had when
>we relied on fossil fuels alone. Now consider the
>seJ cost of *replacements* to our PV facility,
>or to any other infrastructure object.
>
>Actually, consider the *incremental* seJ cost of
>replacing a substantial part of the infrastructure
>soon after t0. I define the incremental seJ cost
>*not* to include any share of the embodied eMergy
>of any infrastructure item constructed before t0,
>but it does include an appropriate share of the
>incremental embodied eMergy of any part
>constructed after t0 that contributes to the seJ
>cost of the replacement part. We compute the
>incremental seJ cost by adding up all the
>incremental seJ costs of infrastructure operation,
>services, materials, other parts that must be
>replaced to support the replaced part, etc.
>
>The incremental seJ cost of a replacement part
>just after t0 will be much smaller than the full
>seJ cost of the original part, for two reasons.
>First, the incremental seJ cost of a replacement
>excludes the embodied eMergy of many
>infrastructure items that contribute to the
>creation of the replacement--namely those
>constructed before t0. Second, and less important
>initially, but more important finally, we get 10%
>of the incident energy on an area of PV out as
>pure exergy. This is far better performance
>(relative to the purposes of human use) than the
>same area of vegetation.
>
>In other words, just after t0 the incremental
>transformities of fuels, etc, derived from the PV
>is much lower than their transformities (their
>incremental seJ cost is much less than their full
>seJ cost). As time goes forward from t0, more and
>more parts of the infrastructure built with fossil
>fuels are replaced, and therefore become candidates
>for having a portion of their embodied eMergy
>included in the incremental seJ cost of
>subsequent replacements. The incremental seJ cost
>rises. The incremental transformities of derived
>fuels also rise, but never approach the
>transformities of fossil fuels. Eventually, all of
>the infrastructure of society, including the PV,
>has been replaced. The full seJ cost of
>replacements to the system has declined slowly
>until it is equal to the incremental seJ
>cost of the replacements, which has risen to meet it. At
>all times after t0, society has operated on solar
>PV power alone, and can continue to do so
>indefinitely.
>
>Now, this scenario may not be possible. If it is
>not possible, I claim that its impossibility is
>*not* a consequence of the correct statement that
>a calculation of the net eMergy of PV that assumes
>fossil fuel inputs to the construction of the PV
>yields a negative result.
>
>By the way, I don't think your reply went to the
>list, so I am not sending this to the list either.
>May I send this again to the list?
>
>David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 10:51:15 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Re: [energyresources] Net energy

I have Dr. Odum's permission to send our off-line
correspondance on this topic to the list:

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W

>From: Htoeco@aol.com
>Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 23:13:52 EDT
>Subject: Re: [energyresources] Net energy
>To: ddelaney@sympatico.ca
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147
>
>
>In a message dated 5/2/02 05:33:36 PM, ddelaney@sympatico.ca writes:
><< Why could a society not leap over the transformity
>gap by making a huge investment of fossil energy
>in PV construction and deployment?
> >>
>HTOdum replies:
>Society does contribute from fossil fuels, which makes the net emergy ratio
>less than one. Net emergy ratio = EROI = (Emergy yield)/(emergy from
>society)
>Or in other words the net emergy from the solar technology is negative: net
>emergy contribution = (Emergy Yield minus Emergy from society).
>Green plants do generate positive net emergy by collecting the solar energy
>in steps starting with green chlorplast photovoltaics then converging to
>stems and trunks to make wood. High density wood has been collected to a
>central power plant, for example at Jari Brazil-a case which we evaluated.
> My point is that these biomass systems are probably the best that can be
>achieved from inherently dilute solar energy. Technological photovoltaics
>have a long way to go to be equivalent.



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com,energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: HT Odum <Htoeco@aol.com>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 17:33:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Net energy

Dr. Odum,

I have trouble with the following sentences:

At 11:06 AM 5/2/02, Htoeco@aol.com wrote:

>Since solar energy reaching the earth is
>inherently dilute, it <solar PV> is
>thermodynamically limited to the efficiencies
>already achieved by green plant's conversions to
>biomass that start with green chloroplasts.
>Chloroplasts contain natural solar photovoltaic
>cells with a billion years or more of natural
>selection for maximum performance (Maximum empower
>principle).

I would like to see a more discursive
comment on the subject of these last two
sentences. The first sentence seems to me
to be false, and the second, although
true, does not, support the first.

The only way I can supply a context in which your
comparison of efficiencies of photosynthesis (PS)
and solar photovoltaic cells (PV) becomes true is to
assume that you are insisting on using
transformities for PS-derived energy sources to
calculate the emjoules embodied in the equipment
and infrastructure needed by the PV. This is valid
for a society in which PV makes only a small
contribution to the energy dissipated by that
society. Such a society has no choice but to build
its PV within an infrastructure constructed mainly
with energy from fossil fuels and biomass. But
after a certain large fraction of the energy used by a
society is derived from solar PV, an entirely
different and more advantageous set of
transformities would come into force, because of PV's
higher ratio of energy captured to incident light
energy.

Why could a society not leap over the transformity
gap by making a huge investment of fossil energy
in PV construction and deployment?

David Delaney, Ottawa, 45N 75W











Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com,ER <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:29:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Harry Parker: After petroleum is gone,

At 07:57 PM 4/19/02, K Davies wrote:
>[Has this article already been commented on? If so, where? If not...]
>
>After petroleum is gone, what then?
>Analysis of seven organic carbon sources discusses possible alternatives
>for transportation fuels
>Harry W. Parker, PhD, PE, Texas Tech University
>http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=1543&MONTH_YEAR=Sep-2001

Most of the content of this article has been
discussed more extensively in this list than in
the article.

The article is enthusiastic about coal
gasification. One interesting statement: "The
endothermic nature of the gasification process
makes the overall thermal efficiency of
gasification processes to liquid fuels and
petrochemical about 50%, despite energy
conservation efforts." (A maximum eroei
of 0.5.) Very little detail given --no breakdown of
energy inputs into high and low quality forms.

The article briefly acknowledge the importance of
high and stable prices for oil as a pre-requisite
for the successful introduction of alternative
fuels, but does not discuss the (im)probability of
such conditions.

David Delaney, Ottawa, 45N 75W



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: coopers@conscoop.ottawa.on.ca,energyresources@yahoogroups.com,
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:19:50 -0400
Subject: [energyresources] Hydrogen in earth deep underground

At 07:33 AM 4/18/02, Steve Kurtz wrote:

>Just got back from 17 day trip to UK. & haven't
>researched this. The NET energy analysis obviously
>isn't mentioned.
>
>>HUGE HYDROGEN STORES FOUND BELOW EARTH'S CRUST
>>DISCOVERY SUGGESTS NEAR LIMITLESS SUPPLY OF CLEAN FUEL
>>By Robert Matthews
>>Vancouver Sun
>>Monday, April 15, 2002

Very silly stuff.

This story also appeared on the front page of the
Ottawa Citizen a few days ago. It think it
originated at the Sunday Telegraph in the UK.
It seems likely that the journalist has
drawn conclusions based on the original
science on the energy source for bacteria in deep
rock combined with off-the cuff reactions he
solicited by telephone from "experts".

The "as much as" 1000 liters of hydrogen
supposedly available per cubic meter of deep rock
is "as much as" 85 grams of H2. The ASHRAE
Handbook of Fundamentals give the heating value of
H2 as 120 MJ/kg, so 1000 liters of H2 has a
heating value of approximately 10 MJ (10 million joules).
A very efficient engine could produce 5 MJ of work
from this heat. To be worth doing, extracting
1000 liters of hydrogen from one cubic meter of
rock must take much less energy than the hydrogen
provides.

Using *all* the energy in 1000 liters of H2 would
provide enough work to lift the one cubic meter of
rock (2000 kg) about 250 meters (800 feet), or
enough heat to raise its temperature by 6 degrees
C. (Assuming a specific heat of 820 J/(kg.C) )
Neither process is going to get the hydrogen
out.

Suppose the rock needs to be crushed, as seems
likely, to get the hydrogen out. The web site
<http://www.elorantaassoc.com/eob97.htm> gives
the work required to crush rock. It takes
approximately 20 MJ of work to crush a cubic meter
of rock into 2 cm stones, supposing this to be fine
enough for some unknown extraction process. Since
at most 5 MJ of work are available from the
hydrogen sought, we hope crushing won't be
necessary.

Might there be vast undiscovered subterranean
deposits of gaseous hydrogen which has sublimed
out of its generating rock into adjacent porous
rock, and is now trapped by an overlying cap of
very impermeable rock? If we could find such
deposits, mining hydrogen would be a matter of
drilling a hole and letting the hydrogen flow up
to the ground. But hydrogen is more difficult to
contain than natural gas, so would presumably have
few suitable natural capping structures to be
found above porous rock adjacent to generating
rocks. Even small hydrogen deposits of this kind
have never yet been found.

David Delaney, Ottawa











Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:03:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Hydrogen to the Rescue

At 11:52 PM 4/15/02, Dana Visalli forwarded wrote:

>Limitless? Well, before you get your hopes up:
>"The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen
>compared to gas, however, means that vast
>quantities of rock would have to be mined. ...
>prohibitively expensive."

Never mind expense, any suggestion of mining rock
from the depths at which rocks have H2 to get "as
much as 1000 liters per cubic meter" of hydrogen
is pretty dumb on energy grounds.

1000 liters of H2 / 22.4 liters per gmole x 2 g
/gmole gives 90 g mass of H2. The ASHRAE Handbook
of Fundamentals gives the heat value of H2 as 120
MJ/kg, so 90 g of H2 has a heat value of about
10.8 MJ.

An efficient (50%) lifting engine could
get 5.4 MJ of work from burning 1000 liters of H2.

To raise 1 cubic meter of rock (say 2000 Kg) from
1 km deep would require about 20,000 newtons x
1000 m = 20 MJ.

In other words, lifting the rock from 1 km would
require 4 times the work we could get from the H2
in the rock.

David Delaney, Ottawa, 45N 75W





Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:26:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] "Scenarios" for the "decline"

At 09:03 PM 4/15/02, Andrew McKillop wrote in reply to Ted Swarts:

>However, ironically maybe, oil shocks TRIGGER
>ECONOMIC GROWTH. With inflation itis true. So the
>'adjustment-through-panic' phase you hint at is
>likely to take quite some time, maybe 15 years or
>more counting from now.

This analysis is all very well, and may be
correct. But it depends on the ability of a sharp
rise in oil prices to increase the total supply of
oil and alternatives. It remains to be seen how
long energy efficiency measures (producing as much
or more with less energy) and alternatives brought
on line by rising prices can overcome the rate of
decline of NG and conventional oil, thereby
permitting economic growth. (At any specific
energy efficiency level, economic growth requires
growth of energy consumption.) Ted's point was
that once alternatives do not compensate for the
decline, and are generally perceived not to do so,
our economy, which depends on an expectation of
growth to continue functioning, will collapse much
more rapidly than physical analysis alone would
suggest is necessary. Your argument does not
refute his point.

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 75W



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: Stan Ovshinsky <investor_relations@ovonic.com>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:01:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [energyresources] New tech solar cells

At 05:22 PM 4/16/02, Robert Waldrop forwarded to
the energyresources list an AP story on a new PV
technology by Stan Ovshinsky and Energy
Conversion Devices:

>What made it all possible was Ovshinsky's
>invention of a "multi-junction" that allows the
>machinery to join six rolls of the material to
>create one roll, nine miles long and 16 inches
>wide, without any loss of generation capability at
>the seams.
>
>Over the course of a year, Ovshinsky plans to
>produce 1,000 miles of the material, which can
>provide a total of 30 megawatts of electric
>power.

1000 miles x 16 inches = 6.5e5 square meters

3e7 W / 6.5e5 m2 = 46 watts/square meter.

About half the conversion efficiency of some other
PV technologies. So ECD will have to beat the
$cost and/or embodied energy per square meter of
those technologies by substantially more than a factor
of two to compensate for the $cost and embodied
energy of the doubling of the panel area to be
supported.

This is copied to Stan Ovshinsky in the hope he
will reply on both $cost and embodied energy.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:34:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Something worth watching?

Last night I watched the first installment of the
PBS feature "Commanding Heights: The battle for
the world economy". I almost turned it off after
a brief introductory comment by Dick Cheney. It
seemed to me that Cheney's presence and comments
were signalling that it would be OK to watch the
program--no disturbing anti-globalization ideas
would be presented without appropriate
qualification. This will probably turn out to be
true. This first two hours on the history of
planning/regulation vs laissez-faire ("free"
markets) were nonetheless worth watching. Major
distortions: 1) The program conflated
regulated capitalism with socialism by opposing
them together to free markets. 2) The 1970's
stagflation in the west is implied to be a result
of a necessary and intrinsic incompetence of
regulation and planning. The recovery from
stagflation in the 1980s is presented as the
result of the superiority of market freedoms
introduced by Thatcher and Reagan. Oil prices are
never mentioned. There is no hint that the
stagflation of the seventies might have been due
to the high price of oil in the 1970s,
and that the recovery of the 1980s might have been
largely due to North Sea oil and Reagan's deal
with the Saudi's to bring down oil prices.

David Delaney, Ottawa 45N 76W

At 08:57 AM 4/3/02, Ron Patterson wrote:
>Picked this up on another list. It looks like it
>might be interesting, wherther or not you agree
>with it.



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:07:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Eureka! An Epiphany!

At 09:21 PM 3/31/02, Denis Frith wrote:

>Having looked carefully at AEO2001, I do not believe that there is
>any possibility of making a case that statistics were fabricated for
>someone else's agenda. It was more a case of biased judgement in
>making the assumptions to be included in the model. This bias was in
>accord with the conventional economic growth paradigm. The model then
>did what it had been told to do.

Even if true, this does not mean that they have not been recklessly
incompetent in the discharge of their statutory duty.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:05:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: A modest proposal from the brigadier

At 08:53 PM 3/31/02, peaceloving2001 wrote:

>This Brigadier suggests what? Because India has acted badly,
>Brigadier Amanullah wants to teach India and Pakistan a lesson?

I felt the Brigadier had gone beyond this level of
response to the situation. Although his hatred of
India remains, he seems to have reached a
recognition of the hopelessness of both the Indian
and the Pakistani situation, and sees cutting down
both populations as a solution.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:58:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Eureka! An Epiphany!

At 03:16 PM 3/31/02, Marvin wrote:
>In a message dated 3/31/02 11:39:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, tedswarts@hotmail.com writes:
>
>>This is highly unlikely since such supply side projections do not exist.
>>Sure, the work of Campbell, Defreyes, Laherrere, et al suggests that on a
>>balance of probabilities the extraction of conventional oil may peak within
>>the next ten years. But in and of itself that does not prove that the
>>USEIA's forecasts are wrong.
>
>Dear Ted:
>
>David Delaney had a very similar comment. I responded to him alone but should have sent it to the list, too. As follows:

Marvin

As I think I've made clear, I support the idea of a suit. What I don't support is the idea that a half baked filing is worth something. I believe that no matter how good a case we present, it will be ignored by the media unless and until a crucial event happens, namely denial of a government motion to dismiss our case. This means that our case has to be good enough to earn that denial.

I do agree that proving their projections are wrong may be difficult or impossible. That does not mean that we cannot show that the EIA and the USGS have failed in their statutory duty because of a reckless disregard for that duty, thereby imposing unnecessary risks and costs on Americans and/or Canadian companies protected under NAFTA.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com,runningOnEmpty2@yahoogroups.com,
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:51:03 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] A modest proposal from the brigadier

Evidence for the proposition that those
with their hands on suitable means may view our
situation as a longage of critters.

Article on line at
<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/landesman.htm>
and copied below

Start of article from Atlantic Monthly March 2002

A Modest Proposal From the Brigadier

What one prominent Pakistani thinks his country should do with its atomic weapons

by Peter Landesman

In the center of the biggest traffic circle of every major city in Pakistan sits a craggy, Gibraltarish replica of a nameless peak in the Chagai range. This mountain is the home of Pakistan's nuclear test site. The development, in 1998, of the "Islamic Bomb," intended as a counter to India's nuclear capability, is Pakistan's only celebrated achievement since its formation, in 1947. The mountain replicas, about three stories tall, are surrounded by flower beds that are lovingly weeded, watered, and manicured. At dusk, when the streetlights come on, so do the mountains, glowing a weird molten yellow.

Islamabad's monument to the atomic bomb occupies a rotary between the airport and the city center. Nearby stand models of Pakistan's two classes of missile: Shaheen and Ghauri. The Islamabad nuclear shrine stands at a place where the city is dissolving into an incoherent edge town of shabby strip malls and empty boulevards and rows of desolate government buildings. A little farther in one comes to the gridded blocks of gated homes. The neighborhoods are called sectors. The streets are numbered, not named.

Late last year, after nearly two months in Pakistan, I paid the last of many visits to house No. 8 on street 19, sector F-8/2, a modern white mansion known as Zardari House. The house has been used by Asif Ali Zardari, the imprisoned husband of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's exiled former Prime Minister. Neither Zardari nor Bhutto has been there for a long time. Zardari has been confined for five years, most recently in Attock Fort, a medieval fortress perched over the Indus River between Islamabad and Peshawar. He is charged with a slew of crimes: large-scale corruption; conspiracy in the murder of Bhutto's brother Mir Murtaza; conspiracy to smuggle narcotics. Bhutto, who also faces corruption charges in Pakistan, lives in Dubai with their three children. Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf, has promised to have her arrested and tried if she ever returns to Pakistan. Outside the gate to the empty Zardari House sits a man with his back to the wall, a sawed-off shotgun across his knees.

I had been going there to consult with Brigadier Amanullah, known to his friends as Aman. Aman, in his early fifties and now retired, is lithe and gentle-natured and seemed to me slightly depressed. He works in a small office behind Zardari House, where, as the secretary to Benazir Bhutto in Islamabad, he coordinates Bhutto's efforts to return to Pakistan and regain its prime ministership. He also keeps in close touch with old colleagues, who include many powerful people in Pakistan. Aman was once the chief of Pakistan's military intelligence in Sind Province, which borders India. Pakistan's biggest city and a cultural center, Karachi, is in Sind. That put Aman squarely in the middle of things, his finger near many sorts of buttons. Today Aman is believed to act as Bhutto's liaison with the armed forces, and he maintains contacts with serving army officers, including senior generals. When I wanted to speak to someone in the Pakistani government, I asked Aman. When I wanted to speak to someone in the Taliban, or in military intelligence, or in the political opposition, I asked Aman. His replies were mumbled and monosyllabic. He never offered opinions. He would simply hear me out and, most times, tip his head and say, "Why not?" Within an hour after Aman and I parted, I would receive a phone call from his secretary. References would be made to "that man" or "that matter," and I would be given a phone number and a time to call. Having spoken with Aman, I was always expected.

On the day of my final visit Aman seemed more sullen than usual. He ushered me into a room adjoining the office. The room was long and spare. There was an oil painting on the far wall. The other walls were empty and lined with cushioned chairs. Aman sat across from me. We had tea and spoke about the latest events.

As we were wrapping up our conversation, I looked at the oil painting. It was a strange picture, a horizontal landscape about four feet across, with overtones of socialist realism. In the foreground a youthful Benazir Bhutto stood in heroic pose on an escarpment overlooking the featureless grid of Islamabad. Beside her stood her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a Prime Minister who in 1977 was ousted in a coup and two years later hanged. On the other side of Bhutto was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the long-dead founding father of Pakistan. Their postures were exalted, their expressions a combination of pride and awe. Jinnah's arm pointed to the vast plain beyond the city, where a rocket was lifting out of billowing clouds of vapor and fire into the sky.

Aman noticed me looking at the painting and followed my gaze. I asked him if Benazir Bhutto had commissioned it, and Aman said no. He told me that one day when she was still Prime Minister, an unknown man, an ordinary Pakistani citizen, had come to the gate of Zardari House with the picture and told Aman that he'd painted it for the Prime Minister and wanted to present it to her as a gift. Aman said that he was immediately transfixed by the painting. He called to Bhutto inside the house, but she refused to come down to see the man. Aman was persistent, and eventually she came down.

"I insisted Benazir accept it as a gift," Aman told me.

We both looked up at the painting in silence. "A rocket ship heading to the moon?" I asked.

Aman tipped his head to the side. A smirk tugged at the corners of his mouth. "No," he said. "A nuclear warhead heading to India."

I thought he was making a joke. Then I saw he wasn't. I thought of the shrines to Pakistan's nuclear-weapons site, prominently displayed in every city. I told Aman that I was disturbed by the ease with which Pakistanis talk of nuclear war with India.

Aman shook his head. "No," he said matter-of-factly. "This should happen. We should use the bomb."

"For what purpose?" He didn't seem to understand my question. "In retaliation?" I asked.

"Why not?"

"Or first strike?"

"Why not?"

I looked for a sign of irony. None was visible. Rocking his head side to side, his expression becoming more and more withdrawn, Aman launched into a monologue that neither of us, I am sure, knew was coming:

"We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities—Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. They have acted so badly toward us; they have been so mean. We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

"Pakistan should fire pre-emptively?" I asked.

Aman nodded.

"And you are willing to see your children die?"

"Tens of thousands of people are dying in Kashmir, and the only superpower says nothing," Aman said. "America has sided with India because it has interests there." He told me he was willing to see his children be killed. He repeated that they didn't have any future—his children or any other children.

I asked him if he thought he was alone in his thoughts, and Aman made it clear to me that he was not.

"Believe me," he went on, "If I were in charge, I would have already done it."

Aman stopped, as though he'd stunned even himself. Then he added, with quiet forcefulness, "Before I die, I hope I should see it."

End of article



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com,energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:54:53 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Suit against EIA and USGS (was Eureka)

Marvin

I know very little about tort law, (or any other
kind of law) but I believe there has to be an act
of omission or commission that fails to discharge
a duty, and consequent actual damage, or probable
future damage, to those to whom the duty is owed.

The failure of duty by EIA and/or USGS would be
that they have been recklessly incompetent in the
discharge of their duty to provide information for
policy formation and public awareness in the face
of a serious hazard in an area in which they are
mandated to provide such information.

The consequential damage is ... what? There are
obvious possible future damages due to
opportunities missed to respond to the crisis.
These would need to be characterized and detailed.

I understand that it is more difficult to obtain
injunctive relief to preclude possible future
damages than to obtain compensation for actual
damages. It might be possible to build a case for
actual damages as well, by getting a company that
has bet on renewables to claim that its profit has
been reduced by unreasonable optimism about oil
and gas created by EIA and USGS. One interesting
possibility would be a suit under NAFTA on behalf
of a Canadian renewables company. But our main
objective and burden should probably be to
demonstrate probable future damage, or at least
probable and avoidable hazard, due to incompetent
methods of projection of reserves.

It is likely to be difficult to show convincingly
that EIA and USGS projections are wrong. It does
not seem to me that it would be necessary to prove
that the projections are wrong in order to
establish reckless incompetence. On the other
hand, the fact that only reckless incompetence is
claimed, rather than wrong results, may make the
claim for damages or injunctive relief more
difficult, and therefore make the suit less likely
to be entertained--unless we are artful in our
construction of the hazard and its potential for
mitigation by accurate information.

We could solicit chapter and verse descriptions
from Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, and others as
to the ways in which EIA and USGS have failed in
their duty of competence. Internal evidence in EIA
and USGS reports of giving more heed to the
desirability of generous projections than to a
duty of competent projection would be the very
best, and I seem to recall that there are some
such. The same commenters could suggest what kind
of injunctive relief might be sought--probably
suggestions as to processes that should be
followed and types of information that should be
presented.

I would say that it would be best to explore some
of these issues and to prepare a position paper
before soliciting help from government agencies
and/or media.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 01:51 AM 3/30/02, Marvin wrote:

>While glancing through the front section of one of
>our local newspapers, I happened upon an article,
>"Government study says drilling in Arctic refuge
>poses threat to wildlife." The article itself
>didn't interest me all that much because I know
>that when the crunch hits, no one will be able to
>stand in our way of drilling in the ANWR: "The
>hell with the damn reindeer and the Eskimos and
>the polar bears and wildlife stuff, I can't stand
>paying three bucks a gallon for my SUV. Fill her
>up or unfill her up, whatever the case may be!"
>
>What did interest me was a report on the report
>that said, "The 78-page report was developed by
>scientists at the U.S. Biological Survey and the
>U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, both agencies
>within the Interior Department, and peer-reviewed
>by outside scientists."
>
>What this indicates to me is that with
>perseverance and great good luck, one might be
>able to locate someone in government or the media
>who would take on the puzzling discrepancy between
>the EIA's figures and the Campbell-Laherrere
>depletion figures. What is at stake, of course, is
>the small amount of time remaining before the
>first impact of world oil topping out hits and our
>energy situation changes dramatically thereafter.
>Any suggestions? I shall use impressive stationery
>and snail mail and elegant English.



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:25:10 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Eureka! An Epiphany!

Of course!

WDITOT

I'd contribute.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 02:37 AM 3/29/02, Marvin wrote:

>I suddenly saw to the very nature of things and
>what we should do to get the message about the
>peak in world oil production almost upon us is to
>sue the EIA, either in a real suit or a mock one,
>over their publication of false information which
>jeopardizes the future security of the nation.
>Even filing to sue would reap reams of newpaper
>print on the subject. The arguments themselves
>could be sent to various representatives and
>officials, and we could go down in history as the
>energy list that shook the world. I could donate
>(gulp) as high as (gulp) $100 -- on a one time
>basis of course. We could sell movie rights. We
>would be on television. I would get my pitcher in
>the paper. A whole film crew and an interviewer
>would come around come around to YOUR place for
>exclusive filming. For once in or history our
>government would be on top of things and do things
>right. I can hardly wait for the group's
>reaction....



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: "wilfrid02144" <lynch@wefa.com>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:10:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Closed Coffin, article from Michael C.

Is anyone aware of Mr. Lynch having predicted a
date for the peak? The following asserts the
predictions of Campbell and Laherrere are wrong,
but does not estimate by how much. Does Mr. Lynch
accept the reality of a peak? Does he place it 100
years away, or thirty years away. Does he accept the
importance of the question?

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 10:14 PM 3/4/02, Karl Davies forwarded
>Article:
>
>Closed Coffin: Ending the Debate on "The End of
>Cheap Oil" A commentary Michael C. Lynch, Chief
>Energy Economist, DRI-WEFA, Inc. September 2001
>
>The past five years have seen a renewed debate on
>the issue of oil supply and the possibility of a
>near-term peak in production and the concomitant
>adverse economic consequences. A number of
>articles have stated that discoveries over the
>past thirty years have been only a fraction of
>consumption and that according to the Hubbert
>Curve method, world oil production is close to a
>peak. What few people realize is that these
>arguments are based entirely on a very particular
>technical argument, and recent evidence has
>highlighted its fallacy.
>
>The greatest attention was achieved by the March
>1998 Scientific American article "The End of Cheap
>Oil" by Jean Laherrere and Colin Campbell, largely
>due to the extreme nature of their warning --
>production peaking within a few years -- and the
>alleged irrefutability of it. Subsequently, the
>authors have been very active publicizing their
>views, including testimony to the British House of
>Commons, speaking on BBC, and a number of other
>venues. A few articles in the general press have
>been at least skeptical, but most of the work
>refuting their arguments has been treated
>cautiously and quite a few lay observers have
>taken their arguments as truth rather than
>speculation. Critics of these arguments (like
>myself) have noted that these forecasts have
>repeatedly proven to be incorrect, including those
>by Colin Campbell in particular, who as early as
>1989 predicted a peak in world oil production for
>that year. Their rejoinder has been to note
>correctly that -- past performance is not proof of
>future performance.
>
>However, to the more explicit charge that their
>model is mis-specified, the authors have made a
>more substantive response. The primary flaw in
>this type of model is the assumption that
>recoverable petroleum resources are fixed, when
>the amount of oil which can be recovered depends
>on both the total amount of oil (a geological
>factor which is fixed), but also dynamic variables
>like price, infrastructure, and technology. If the
>amount of recoverable oil increases, as it has in
>the past, then the level predicted for peak
>production must increase and the date pushed
>further into the future. This has been observed
>many times from forecasters using this type of
>model and relying on estimates of ultimately
>recoverable resources (URR). But Campbell and
>Laherrere have asserted that their estimate of URR
>is both highly accurate and stable because of
>their calculation using field size estimates
>showing declining discovery size, moving towards
>an asymptote. Since they have relied heavily on a
>privately held database, which is unavailable to
>the general researcher, it has been difficult for
>critics to respond to this specifically.
>
>The reliance on discovery trends to estimate URR
>has received similar criticism as the faulty URR
>estimates, namely that estimates of field size
>tend to increase over time with improved recovery
>methods, better examination of seismic data,
>infill drilling, and so forth. This means that the
>size of the recent fields is being underestimated
>compared to older fields, exaggerating the
>nearness of the asymptote and understating its
>size. An analogy would be to plant trees over
>twenty years and note that the size of the most
>recently planted trees was shrinking, and
>concluding that timber resources would become
>scarce. Campbell and Laherrere have argued in
>response that increases in recovery at existing
>fields are artifacts of accounting rules (which is
>only partly true) and that they have overcome this
>flaw by their reliance on a database whose reserve
>estimates do not suffer from this bias. Since the
>estimate of ultimately recoverable resources is
>based on their field size estimates, the question
>of field growth becomes central to the entire
>debate. And their primary line of defense has been
>that their critics lack access to this database.
>
>Last year, the publication of the USGS's World
>Petroleum Assessment provided one particularly
>sharp nail in the coffin of this argument, when
>(among other things) they examined the development
>of field size estimates over time using the same
>proprietary database which Campbell and Laherrere
>relied on, and concluded that reserve growth from
>existing fields, although uncertain, would be
>substantial. They published a mean estimate of 612
>billion barrels (nearly 30 years of current
>consumption), significantly increasing their
>estimate of the world's URR.
>
>But the final nails seem to be located in this
>summer's little-noticed announcement by IHS Energy
>-- the firm whose field database Campbell and
>Laherrere have utilized -- of estimated
>discoveries. According to the firm, discoveries in
>2000 were 14.3 billion barrels in 2000, a 10% drop
>from 1999. This has two interesting implications:
>first, discoveries have risen sharply the past two
>years, refuting the statement that poor geology,
>rather than lack of access to the most prospective
>areas in OPEC, has kept discoveries low for the
>past three decades. But also, this implies that
>discoveries in the past two years have amounted to
>nearly 20% of the total undiscovered oil which
>Campbell and Laherrere argued remain! Undoubtedly
>they -- and others -- will argue that this is due
>to the firm's inclusion of deepwater reserves,
>which they are not considering, and that is a
>factor in the recent robustness of discoveries.
>However, the primary element behind the greater
>discovery rates has been the finding of two new
>supergiant fields in Kazakhstan and Iran. Again,
>this refutes the argument that discoveries have
>been relatively low in recent decades due to
>geological scarcity and supports the optimists'
>arguments that the lower discoveries are partly
>due to reduced drilling in the Middle East after
>the 1970s nationalizations.
>
>And the most crucial fact is actually IHS Energy's
>reference to earlier discoveries. They have
>revised their estimates of remaining reserves at
>end -- 1991 to 1200 billion barrels, implying that
>oil discovered to that date was close to 1900
>billion barrels (since about 675 billion barrels
>had been produced). This despite the
>Campbell/Laherrere argument that their data does
>not experience revisions due to their reliance on
>P50 (50% probability) estimates, compared to P90
>(90% probability) used in the US and by many US
>oil companies. While there remain uncertainties
>about future field reserve growth versus
>historical growth, it becomes clear that it is
>still continuing and the arguments that they had
>corrected for the problem are fallacious at best.
>
>Indeed, the sheer size of the revisions are
>themselves significant. Although I lack access to
>historical IHS Energy estimates, Campbell and
>Laherrere had placed "back-dated" reserves in the
>early 1990s at barely over 1000 billion barrels in
>their 1998 article. This implies (to be generous)
>an increase due to revisions of 150 billion
>barrels or more in a mere five years: 30% more
>than actual consumption! It means (as I have
>repeatedly argued) that their discovery trend
>curves are misleading, because the more recent
>numbers were understated, and in the future will
>likely be too low again. The method they use is
>flawed because of this definitional mistake.
>
>Note also that the amount discovered to 1991
>(which would include only minimal deepwater
>discoveries) is actually significantly greater
>than the two now estimate would ever be
>discovered. In fact, IHS Energy puts current
>reserves at 1100 billion barrels, which, with past
>production, yields almost 2000 billion barrels,
>about 10% or 200 billion barrels over the 1800
>billion barrels which the duo have confidently
>predicted would be the ultimate total. Presumably
>we can expect them to make yet another upwards
>revision in their URR estimate. Indeed, despite
>fears of declining discoveries, estimated
>recoverable resources -- even by pessimists --
>have grown faster than consumption. This can
>hardly be argued as a sign of resource scarcity.
>
>There are many other arguments that have made up
>part of this debate, and I have tried to deal with
>each of them in the articles cited below, as well
>as further forthcoming work. But while we need be
>concerned about quite a number of issues related
>to petroleum supply -- depletion, change in
>reserve growth, concentration of production in
>politically stable areas -- a possible near-term
>peak in production (conventional or otherwise) is
>not one of them. It takes a lot of nails to close
>a coffin, but the size and quality of these will
>hopefully ensure that it remains closed.
>
>"Forecasting Oil Supply: Theory and Practice,"
>Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 2001,
>forthcoming. "The Debate Over Oil Supply: Science
>or Religion?" Geopolitics of Energy, August 1999.
>"Farce this Time: Renewed Pessimism About Oil
>Supply" Geopolitics of Energy, December
>1998-January 1999. "The Analysis and Forecasting
>of Petroleum Supply: Sources of Error and Bias,"
>in Energy Watchers VII, ed. by Dorothea H. El
>Mallakh, International Research Center for Energy
>and Economic Development, 1996.
>
>From:
>http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch2.html



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:12:47 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] oops

At 06:53 AM 3/4/02, you wrote:

>HT Odum reply about energy equivalence of goods and services March 5 2002
>The emergy per money ratio for the US economy now is about 1 E12 solar
>emjoules/$. We put everything in the solar energy previously required (solar
>emergy). However if you are trying to put everything in fossil fuel
>equivalents previously required (coal emergy), then convert the solar
>emjoules to coal emjoules using 40,000 solar emjoules per coal joule. (It is
>incorrect to use energies of different kinds without converting to a common
>form required to generate each).

This would give about 25e6 J/$, which is about twice the value usually
calculated and used (12000 Btu/$ approx = 12e6 J/$. Whence the discrepancy?

David Delaney, Ottawa, 45N



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Kermit Schlansker" <kssustain@provide.net>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:15:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Fw: [energyresources] Gas depletion

Kermit

At 09:32 AM 3/3/02, you wrote:

>I have MSword. If you send me a copy of your info
>to northwest power I will tell you if it is
>received okay. The inserted graph is the one
>referred to. If you take it literally it is a very
>grim mesage. I haven't figured out yet how to send
>these graphs in Email. They always disappear.

You are probably sending a .bmp or some other MS
graphic. Use Adobe Photo Shop or some other image
manipulating program. Cut images from a .pdf or
.doc document, then paste them into the graphic
program. Export a .gif from the graphic program.
The .gif is your attachment. You will have to do a
bit of fiddling to get the image to look they way
you think it should.

David Delaney, Ottawa, 45N



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 09:48:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Clarification to Marvin about oil

At 06:45 AM 3/2/02, mainster2002 wrote:

>If the price of energy is high for everyone the
>price of all products produced will also be higher
>to cover the increased cost. Thus there is no
>reson that companies will go bankrupt if energy
>prices rise. People will just have to adsjust in
>general...

Smooth adjustment requires that the consumption of
transportation fuel continues to grow, possibly
after a short period of adjustment to a generally
lower level of consumption. If a rapid, decades
long, decline in transportation fuel cannot be
overcome by alternative fuels, then our economy
must decline during those decades. Our economy
cannot stand a decades long decline--it works only
with the expectation of short term growth. Radical
instability would result, with conditions much
worse than the 1930s. Take a look at some of the
graphs in, say, Jean Laherrere's paper;
Forecasting future production from past discovery,
presented at the conference OPEC and the global
energy balance: towards a sustainable energy
future, Vienna, Sept. 28-29, 2001. The paper is
available on the web at
<http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/opec2001>.pdf.
With these rates of decline, try to imagine what
we would have to go through to get to a state in
which consumption of transportation fuels can grow
again.

An economy that does not depend on growth may be
possible, but we cannot get to it without radical
change. If we wait for change to be imposed on us
by circumstances and "the market", the change will
inevitably be chaotic and deadly.

David Delaney, Ottawa, 45.3N






Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:19:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Why so negative??

At 03:20 PM 2/28/02, Mary Lehmann wrote:

> >"We are very gratified to know the World Bank wishes to give us money,
> >and we anxiously await the impossibly strict policies attached to these
> >loans that will keep us from being able to escape poverty for decades,"
> >said Afghan tribal leader Hamid Karzai. "We are all very tired of war,
> >and hopeless destitution will be a welcome respite".
> ------------------------------------------

This is much too good to be true. Reference?

David Delaney



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Kermit Schlansker" <kssustain@provide.net>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:34:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Gas depletion

At 07:49 PM 2/26/02, Kermit Schlansker wrote:
> Unlike others who are just chatting I am still trying to generate material to influence public opinion. Please review this pass out sheet to find any errors or write your own version.


Kermit, There was no graph in your attachment, just some colored geometric figures.

David Delaney, ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:14:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: World oil peaked in 2000 ... C.

At 08:11 PM 2/24/02, KD and TR wrote:

>The powers that be can't mention the truth on this subject, or even
>discuss it, because to do so would upset the stock market - maybe even
>kill it. The stock market is their god. They don't want to anger their
>god, much less kill it.
>
>~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
>Could you-all be giving "these folks" more credit than they warrant?

I think so. A large conspiracy is simply not
credible. And this would have to be a large
conspiracy. It is completely obvious that there
will be a crash of the human population sometime
this century unless there is a miraculous energy
discovery. Yet very few acknowledge this obvious
truth. Many intelligent people with access to
sufficient information to know this truth deny it
with passionate conviction. If even "sometime
this century, obviously" arouses such denial, why
is it surprising that the even more threatening
"very possibly within 15 or 20 years" would be
almost universally denied, especially in high
places, where people have bigger bets on business
as usual? This earlier threat requires
considerable intellectual commitment to understand
and accept, even for a relatively free mind. A
mind bound by preserving political or corporate
power finds it easy to turn away from such
possibilities, when turning away has such a large
constituency.

David Delaney, Ottawa




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:24:20 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Yahoo's proposal for paying vs. free

I find it difficult to search the archive. It would be very useful
to be able to do a google search on it.

David Delaney

At 01:17 PM 2/19/02, Jack Dingler wrote:
>I'd be happy enough doing this on UseNet or setting up a mailing group
>outside of Yahoo.
>
>Jack Dingler
>
>~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
>
>Lets see exactly what Yahoo is offering and then look at alternatives.
>
>I have a web site we may use that is paid for, vacant, very good access, and with whatever capacity we may want to use.
>
>~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:31:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] A couple of questions for all of you.

At 12:27 AM 2/18/02, Brian ("bebaba" <bjdephillips@micron.com>) wrote:

I'll give my answers in reverse order:

>2) do you honestly believe that our society will
>be able to make it through the coming crisis
>without much death and panic?

Our "society" , meaning its current organization
and values, has no chance at all of surviving
another 25 years. Whether there will be a die-off
in North America and Europe in that time frame is
an interesting and depressing question to
contemplate. In 2100, I believe, the world will
have only a fraction of the people it has today.
In the very best case we will have brought our
numbers and consumption levels down to live
within the long-term tolerance of the environment
for human beings. In the much more probable case,
the huge overshoot of the human population
relative to long term carrying capacity will
ensure the permanent destruction of much of that
long term carrying capacity. The resulting crash
will, before 2100, probably much before, reduce
our numbers way below the current long term
carrying capacity, which is already a small
fraction of current population. If you trust the
Campbell, Laherrere, Youngquist, Deffeyes, etc.,
thread of analysis of the oil supply, as I do, and
understand a few facts about ecology, you must
expect severe economic and social disruption to
begin everywhere within 15 years, including the
beginning of a worldwide die-off of humans. I
believe the scenario is inevitable, although there
must be uncertainty as to its schedule. There is a
physical possibility that some countries could
avoid a die-off, or mitigate it greatly, but
denial of the problem, and the manipulations of
vested interests, give those physical
possibilities approximately zero chance of
realization. To avoid or mitigate a die-off, any
country needs to start immediately eliminating all
products that do not contribute something clearly
identifiable as useful after the peak. Also
required: an immediate beginning on
enforced birth control having a target of
population reduction, not a target of restraining
growth, complete suppression of immigration,
radical reconstruction of farming, industry, and
the patterns and location of habitation relative
to work, relieved somewhat by massive development
of public transport and freight trains. Last but
not least: government planning for management of
energy resources and the deployment of renewable
energy sources. I believe every society in the
world will try to undergo these changes
eventually, but only too late, when a die-off is
upon us, and when it will have been made
impossible to avoid. Just to state these
requirements is to recognize the impossibility of
addressing them now, in the circumstances of
current attitudes, beliefs, and interests. But
embracing these requirements now, this year, this
month, before severe constraints limit our
ability to react to them, is necessary to
exploit any remaining physical possibility of
avoiding die-off and violence.

>1) what do you plan to do in the next 5 years to
>prepare for the coming crisis?

Even if you believe that the astronomically remote
chance of creating the necessary consensus in time
to mitigate the approaching awfulness is worth
your commitment, as I still do, it would be
prudent, as someone recently said to me, to start
building your fox hole.

David Delaney, Ottawa





Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:57:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Technology Review/Limits to Growth

At 09:41 AM 2/17/02, Heiko wrote:

<snip>

>Mr Delaney made a similar comment (saying it was
>plausible that the Limits to Growth believed oil
>would run out sometime between 1992 and 2022, but
>they didn't predict anything really).

This is a disgraceful way to summarize what I
said. Let me say it again more simply: To dismiss
Limits to Growth by saying it's all wrong because it
predicted oil would run out in 1992 is to tell a
malicious lie.

<snip>

>This model prediction was wrong, and it's a faulty
>prediction that matters, because it's contrary to
>one of the basic assumptions in the model that
>affect the fundamental way it behaves.
<snip>
> Once those fundamentals
>are thrown into doubt, the model is rendered
>useless.

The argument concluded by the above statements is
a thorough misrepresentation of what Limits to
Growth was about. Heiko refuses to acknowledge the
distinction between the *predictions* of LTG and
the results of model runs--distinctions clearly
stated and emphasized by LTG itself. The purpose
of the model was to identify the shape of the
response functions. LTG used the model to
identify overshoot as a structural implication
of the world's human systems--a consequence of rapid
growth and feedback delays--and the necessity of a
following crash due to resource exhaustion.
Heiko's criticisms are not even relevant to LTG's
conclusions in this regard. LTG's careful choice
of 2100 as the date by which a crash was likely to
have happened with business as usual was intended
to draw the implications of the response shape
while allowing a generous margin to render certain
considerations moot--considerations of the kind
Heiko dwells on.

LTG's authors greatly underestimated how
irrationality, wishful thinking, even malice,
would be given free rein in discussion of
their work. For those who have eyes to see, the
intervening 30 years have shown the value of LTG,
a value that was largely thrown away.

David Delaney, Ottawa

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Folks, we not only threw away the value of the Limits to Growth exercise, but we did so at great and accelerating cost to our society.

Most importantly, we lost out on gaining improvements in perceptual/analytical accuracy. The consequences of these actions seriously affect our ability to navigate our social enterprise through the increasingly uncertain sea of the future.

In fact, our society, particularly influenced by its dominant discipline-oriented intellectual traditions, took advantage of the early findings in modeling by using the LTG results and their contradictions to "common sense" as a basis for claiming that it is impossible to model or otherwise apply science to know the future.

Of course, among our dominant intellectual traditions of the time, it was and still is the economists and associated social scientists and policy-directing hangers-on who made and elaborated on such claims.

Systems Dynamics, the intellectual foundation for Limits to Growth, has moved far beyond the analytical processes of a third of a century ago. Further, other analytical processes, particularly Odum's Systems Ecology/EMergy offer powerful complements, as in fact do economics and other analytical processes.

The main problem today is first there is no working epistemology to sort out and take advantage of the relative merit of the diverse perceptual/analytical processes available to us, and, we should fully appreciate the inertial force of the conventional wisdom. If it were up to those holding the conventional view, as well as those advocating this or that policy or course of action, we would simply do what they see as obviouis--totally independent of the reality of our times and the great transitions just about any one willing (and able) to look can see.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 19:08:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: UCR....and subsidies

At 01:57 PM 2/17/02, Steven Zoraster wrote:

>Mr. Delaney,
>
>You recognize a problem. I recognize a slightly
>different problem. The answer for you - in my
>opinion - is to invest some money in those wind
>turbine, power generation companies in Denmark.
>Or in fuel cells, or in Toyota or Honda because
>they seem to be leading the pack in hybrid
>vehicles. Or whatever you believe is the answer.

Well, no. If you can make this suggestion you only
half understand my point. Renewables are going to
lose money and be unattractive as investments
until *nothing* is attractive as an investment,
because the only way they can be successful and
achieve the necessary level of deployment is with
favorable government "interference" that will not
happen because of the dominance of market
fundamentalism and denial of problems that require
"collectivist" solutions.

>The answer for me definitely is to invest in
>petroleum companies on the fringes of the industry
>that I think can take advantage of the coming
>changes in the industry. My guess is that the
>companies I pick get less government subsidies
>than those windmill people in Denmark. Damn!

The fossil fuel business enjoys hugely greater
subsidies than any renewables business--depletion
allowances, exploration incentives, R&D subsidies,
public roads, public acceptance of the cost of
externalities, military and diplomatic support for
continued access to resources. The barriers to
renewables would be hugely reduced if fossil fuels
were made to pay their full costs, or otherwise
put on a level playing field with renewables.

>Hopefully, one of us will make money. And save the
>world in the process. Even more hopefully, it will
>be me, and I can retire early. Or, maybe my kids
>will not have to work for a living.

As I say above, renewables will not be successful.
I too am investing in fossil fuels, because I
expect that I will be able to take advantage of
one of those saw teeth. Our actions in this regard
will do nothing to save the world.

<snip description of unsuccessful subsidies of
automobile energy efficiency>

>I assume that there are similar programs in Canada
>from which you would like you money back?

What I'd like is a careful but committed retreat
from economic growth.

>P.S. I can't think how we are going to argue our
>way to an agreement on this issue.

I agree. Our positions proceed from what Herman
Daly calls different pre-analytic visions.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:06:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: UCR....and subsidies

Steven

It just occurred to me why you did not understand
the argument in my post below. Until I had this
flash, I simply could not see how it was possible
for you not to understand, just as I found it a
bit strange that you even asked your original
question.

At 10:31 AM 2/17/02, Steven Zoraster wrote:
>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney <ddelaney@s...> wrote:
> > At 04:59 PM 2/16/02, Steven Zoraster wrote:
> >
> > >I trust that this logic also applies to renewable-based resources:
> > >they should "bootstrap themselves without subsidies". If not,
> > >why not?
> >
> > That's easy.
> >
>> > I don't know if renewables have sufficient EROEI
>so that they could in principle bootstrap
>themselves. I do know that an economy that prices
>fossil fuels sufficiently low--fuels that
>obviously have a higher EROEI than
>renewables--could easily make even an energy
>source that is in principle capable of supporting
>itself "uneconomic".
>
> > David Delaney, Ottawa
>
>I find it impossible to parse the above argument, even if it is easy.

Your problem, I think, is that you did not realize
that when I said "an energy source that is capable
of supporting itself" I left out a final word
"energetically". It puzzles me slightly that the
absence of this word, in this context, caused such
confusion.

A primary energy source that might well have
enough eroei to sustain itself and a whole economy
would not be able to compete in another economy
based on a higher eroei source, in the absence of
countervailing extra-market incentives. The cheap
would drive out the dear. I also left out context
that I assumed would be instantly evoked in
participants in this group: many of us believe
that it is necessary to deploy more expensive,
lower eroei, renewable sources to mitigate a
future decline of fossil fuels too rapid to permit
adequate deployment of renewables after the
decline is under way.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:30:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: UCR....and subsidies

At 10:31 AM 2/17/02, Steven Zoraster wrote:
>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney <ddelaney@s...> wrote:
>
> > That's easy.
> >
> > I don't know if renewables have sufficient EROEI so that they could
> > in principle bootstrap themselves. I do know that an economy that
> > prices fossil fuels sufficiently low--fuels that obviously have a
> > higher EROEI than renewables--could easily make even an energy
> > source that is in principle capable of supporting itself
> > "uneconomic".
>
>I find it impossible to parse the above argument, even if it is easy.
><snip>
>And let the technology with the "best" EROEI win without subsidies.

This is a prescription for disaster. The best
eroei is for fossil fuels, by far. Fossil fuels
will have the best eroei until they start
declining so fast that renewables cannot be built
fast enough to compensate for the shortfall. Only
government "interference" can remedy the lack of
market incentive to fill this gap before we get to
it. But we refuse to acknowledge the problem, or
do the work needed to know what actions would be
most sensible.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:19:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Oil Bust/Boom Cycle (cont'd)

At 07:58 PM 2/16/02, Dick Lawrence wrote:

>What I'm saying is that, below some broad
>threshold, demand becomes a lot less flexible,
>because people have to eat, and avoid freezing in
>the winter (yes it's February in New England!).
>If you go back to "Beyond Oil" and models like
>that, the models quantify those lower levels of
>demand that I expect to be relatively impervious
>to price.

To a point, yes. But nothing says that everybody
will eat or be warm. How well did everyone eat even in the
thirties in the US? Certainly the third world
doesn't "have" to eat, in the sense that when the
oil price shoots up they won't be able to pay for
oil or food. Even in the US massive unemployment and
business failure can hugely and progressively
reduce the demand for oil. I don't know what the
interim dynamics will be, but the scenario of a
sawtooth profile for oil prices against a general
decline, and with only very short duration for high
price spikes at the tip of each tooth, is very plausible.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:02:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Potential for UCR: Sperm oil crisis

At 06:51 PM 2/16/02, Steven Zoraster wrote:
>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney <ddelaney@s...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know if the situation of rising price and
> > falling supply (not slowly rising) is precedented.
> > If it is not, the proposed reaction of the economy
> > may not be falsifiable by historical analysis.
>
>What about the famous sperm oil crisis during the 1860s? Well, maybe
>not so famous, but certainly an analogy which doesn't imply the end
>of the world as we know it today is near.
>
>http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/protectio
>nismpopulismandinterventionism/thresholdless.html

Stephen

I presume you are joking. If not, then I don't see that a crisis in
sperm whale oil in the middle of the nineteenth century is in any way
analogous to a reduction of the energy available to operate most businesses.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:52:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Potential for Unconventional

At 04:59 PM 2/16/02, Steven Zoraster wrote:

>I trust that this logic also applies to renewable-based resources:
>they should "bootstrap themselves without subsidies". If not,
>why not?

That's easy.

I don't know if renewables have sufficient EROEI
so that they could in principle bootstrap
themselves. I do know that an economy that prices
fossil fuels sufficiently low--fuels that
obviously have a higher EROEI than renewables--
could easily make even an energy source that is in
principle capable of supporting itself
"uneconomic".

David Delaney, Ottawa

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Which is exactly what is happening as high EROEI resources outcompete the low EROEI resources that we will come to need in the future--but do not now have the analytical capacity to value in relative physical terms.

This is the main irony in the solar-roller resistance to EROEI analysis. Low yield energy resource/technologies can provide increasingly substantial benefits if they are judiciously devaloped and phased in meeting the systemic needs of an increasingly high-EROEI deprived world.

But we must have an accurate and commonly understood basis for such analysis--and there will be no margin for Enron-like games.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:37:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Potential for Unconvential Petroleum....

At 09:28 AM 2/16/02, b wrote:

>It seems to me more that oil has more or less
>stabilized because on a per capita basis there is
>and has been a sufficient supply for quite some
>time. Once the availability per capita starts
>heading down I fail to see how the price will not
>rise.

It will rise, of course.

The key question is "What happens when it rises?"

If a small rise in price creates a prompt small
increase in the supply of crucial energy supplies,
then the price will rise smoothly and keep rising
as long as this nice relationship holds. Inflation
will relieve some of the consequences of the price
rises, and there will be a smooth shift of
society's resources toward extracting oil and
providing alternatives. This is what the
economists expect to happen.

But if, (when) a significant price rise is
followed by a decrease in the supply of crucial
kinds of energy, we can expect very surprising
things to happen. Such a negatively sloped supply
curve can happen, of course, if conventional oil
declines faster than alternatives are brought
on line. In this case, the economy *must*
contract. Plausibly, such contraction will reduce
the absolute demand for oil, exerting strong
negative feedback on its rising price, probably
reducing demand to the point where the supply
curve is positively sloped. The interim balance of
these effects is hard to predict, but it seems
most probable that the result will be a profound
depression of the kind we had in the thirties.
However, when this depression starts to end, the
rising economy will quickly run into the same
limit again. And again. And again....

I don't know if the situation of rising price and
falling supply (not slowly rising) is precedented.
If it is not, the proposed reaction of the economy
may not be falsifiable by historical analysis.

The requirement to keep our present economy stable
is that energy supply, especially the supply of
transportation fuels, continue to rise to allow
growth. Decreases in supply could be postponed by
government interference in the market to cause
very high cost extraction to happen, keeping (for
a while) price rises from "resulting" in supply
decreases. The result would be government forcing
of a massive shift of economic activity to
extraction and alternatives. We are, of course
seeing this already in the massive subsidies being
lined up by the Bush administration for
extraction. So much for free markets. Eventually,
of course, the finite nature of all resources will
catch up with us, and the resulting collapse will
be much worse than it would have been if we had
wisely anticipated it by finding a way to reduce
the economy gracefully.

David Delaney, Ottawa




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:15:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Potential for Unconvential Petroleum....

At 04:16 PM 2/15/02, b wrote:

>Interesting, but no mention of what the price of
>conventional oil must go to before it enables
>investment in unconventionals. I realize that
>would be pure speculation, but it would still be
>interesting to hear professional opinion.

Rising oil prices due to shortages will not rise
far before killing the economic activity that
would be required to maintain them. The resulting
oil price saw tooth will not provide oil prices
consistently high enough to motivate the
development of resources at substantially higher
cost. There may well be non-market solutions to
this weakness of the market in the face of oil
shortages, but even so, permanently worsening
economic depression seems inevitable.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:25:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Limits to Growth

At 05:08 AM 2/15/02, Heiko wrote:
>The Limits to Growth DID predict for all intents and purposes that
>we'd run out of oil (defined as clearly rising production costs) by
>around the 1990's at the latest, even though they were a bit vague as
>to the exact date.
>
>I went into more detail, but it seems the post was too long for the
>taste of the moderator, so I just provide a link:
>http://www.geocities.com/hgerhauser/limits.htm

Heiko,

I read what you wrote about LTG. You make a
plausible case that the writers of LTG may have
believed that oil would run out of petroleum
sometime between 20 years (1992) and 50 years
(2022) after the 1972 date of publication of LTG.
Your argument that this conclusion can be deduced
from the text is also plausible. Your belief that
this means LTG predicted a date, or even a range
of dates for the exhaustion of oil is just silly
in view of LTG's repeated and explicit denial of
such predictions, and the absence in LTG of
words stating such predictions.

Your argument that LTG, in contradiction of its
authors' explicitly stated intentions, gives a
prediction of the date or of a ranges of dates of
exhaustion of petroleum is so tenuous that any
statement of its conclusion that does not qualify
it as a debatable and extreme interpretation of
LTG and describe the tenuous nature of the
argument, or that does not quote the explicit
denials of such predictions, must be viewed as
deliberately giving a false impression of the
intent of LTG. In other words, such bare
statements, at least when coming from those who
have reason to know better, must be viewed either
as lies, or as unknowing and careless repetition
of lies.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:30:46 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Unbelievable Tinkerbelleism

At 12:54 PM 2/11/02, lawrence_01749 wrote:

>Then there's the Club of Rome (Limits to Growth)
>part: does it actually predict oil depletion by
>1992? I read Simmons' rebuttal to criticism of
>Limits to Growth, and he says their projections
>are for 70 to 100 years out (from 1972), not 20.
>Therefore, the critiques were off the mark,
>because it hasn't played out yet - it's got
>another 50 years to go! Anyone here got the book?
> Please help us!

Limits to Growth is repetitively clear about what
it does and does not predict.

The reference to oil running out undoubtedly
refers to a Table 4 Non-Renewable Natural
Resources, which is included to demonstrate the
power of exponential growth. Petroleum is shown
running out in twenty years from 1972, the date of
publication, if no change in the rate of growth of
consumption takes place, and no further supplies
are found, assuming the then known reserves of
455e9 bbls the only oil. The same entry gives 50
years if there is no change in rate of consumption
and the 455e9 is only one fifth of the real
total.

This table was definitely and explicitly not
intended as a prediction, and there is no
corresponding statement about the exhaustion of
oil in the text. In fact there are many
disclaimers having the total effect that the only
prediction in the book is that without changes in
the way we organize our economy, there will be
overshoot and collapse before 2100. As far as I
can see, those who say LTG was wrong, and have been
proven so by experience, either don't
know what they are talking about, or are trying to
mislead, or both. I extracted a set of all the
passages I could find in LTG that relate to
prediction. Here they are:

Start of excerpts from LTG

Limits to Growth, Donella H. Meadows, et al, 1972,
Earth Island Limited, London, ISBN 0 85644 010 8


Chaper III: Growth in the world system

p. 91-92

THE PURPOSE OF THE WORLD MODEL

In this first simple world model, we are
interested only in the broad behavior modes of the
population-capital system. By behavior modes we
mean the tendencies of the variables in the system
(population or pollution, for example) to change
as time progresses. A variable may increase,
decrease, remain constant, oscillate, or combine
several of these characteristic modes. For
example, a population growing in a limited
environment can approach the ultimate carrying
capacity of that environment in several possible
ways. It can adjust smoothly to an equilibrium
below the environmental limit by means of a
gradual decrease in growth rate, as shown below.
It can over-shoot the limit and then die back
again in either a smooth or an oscillatory way,
also as shown below. Or it can overshoot the limit
and in the process decrease the ultimate carrying
capacity by consuming some necessary nonrenewable
resource..... This behavior has been noted in many
natural systems. For instance, deer or goats, when
natural enemies are absent, often overgraze their
range and cause erosion or destruction of the
vegetation.

p. 94

Can anything be learned from such a highly
aggregated model? Can its output be considered
meaningful? In terms of exact predictions, the
output is not meaningful. We cannot forecast the
precise population of the United States nor the
GNP of Brazil nor even the total world food
production for the year 2015. The data we have to
work with are certainly not sufficient for such
forecasts, *even if it were our purpose to make
them*. [Emphasis mine. DD] On the other hand, it
is vitally important to gain some understanding of
the causes of growth in human society, the limits
to growth, and the behavior of our socioeconomic
systems when the limits are reached.

p. 121-122

... Even in the absence of improved data,
information now available is sufficient to
generate valid basic behavior modes for the world
system. This is true because the model's feedback
loop structure is a much more important
determinant of overall behavior than the exact
numbers used to quantify the feedback loops. Even
rather large changes in input data do not
generally alter the mode of behavior, as we shall
see in the following pages. Numerical changes may
well affect the period of an oscillation or the
rate of growth or the time of a collapse, but they
will not affect the fact that the basic mode is
oscillation or growth or collapse.* Since we
intend to use the world model only to answer
questions about behavior modes, *not to make exact
predictions*, [emphasis mine -- DD] we are primarily
concerned with the correctness of the feedback
loop structure and only secondarily with the
accuracy of the data.

Footnote on p. 121:

* The importance of structure rather than numbers
is a most difficult concept to present without
extensive examples from the observation and
modeling of dynamic systems. For further
discussion of this point, see chapter 6 of I. W.
Forrester's Urban Dynamics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1969).

p. 122

... If decision-makers at any level had access to
precise predictions and scientifically correct
analyses of alternate policies, we would certainly
not bother to construct or publish a simulation
model based on partial knowledge. Unfortunately,
there is no perfect model available for use in
evaluating today's important policy issues. At the
moment, our only alternatives to a. model like
this, based on partial knowledge, are mental
models, based on the mixture of incomplete
information and intuition that currently lies
behind most political decisions. A dynamic model
deals with the same incomplete information
available to an intuitive model, but it allows the
organization of information from many different
sources into a feedback loop structure that can be
exactly analyzed. Once all the assumptions are
together and written down, they can be exposed to
criticism, and the system's response to
alternative policies can be tested.

p. 126

We can thus say with some confidence that, under
the assumption of no major change in the present
system, population and industrial growth will
certainly stop within the next century, at the
latest. [Emphasized by italics in the original.
DD]

Chapter IV: Technology and the limits to growth

p. 142-143

Although we have many reservations about the
approximations and simplifications in the present
world model, it has led us to one conclusion that
appears to be justified under all the assumptions
we have tested so far. *The basic behavior mode of
the world system is exponential growth of
population and capital, followed by collapse.*
{Emphasized by italics in the original. DD] As we
have shown in the model runs presented here, this
behavior mode occurs if we assume no change in the
present system or if we assume any number of
technological changes in the system.

The unspoken assumption behind all of the model
runs we have presented in this chapter is that
population and capital growth should be allowed to
continue until they reach some "natural" limit.
This assumption also appears to be a basic part of
the human value system currently operational in
the real world. Whenever we incorporate this value
into the model, the result is that the growing
system rises above its ultimate limit and then
collapses. When we introduce technological
developments that successfully lift some restraint
to growth or avoid some collapse, the system
simply grows to another limit, temporarily
surpasses it, and falls back. Given that first
assumption, that population and capital growth
should not be deliberately limited, but should be
left to "seek their own levels," we have not been
able to find a set of policies that avoids the
collapse mode of behavior.

It is not really difficult to understand how the
collapse mode comes about. Everywhere in the web
of interlocking feedback loops that constitutes
the world system we have £ound it necessary to
represent the real-world situation by introducing
time delays between causes and their ultimate
effects. These are natural delays that cannot be
controlled by technological means. They include,
£or example, the delay of about fifteen years
between the birth of a baby and the time that baby
can first reproduce itself.

p. 144-145

In exactly the same way, the delays in the
£eedback loops of the world system would be no
problem if the system were growing very slowly or
not at all. Under those conditions any new action
or policy could be instituted gradually, and the
changes could work their way through the delays to
£eed back on every part of the system be£ore some
other action or policy would have to be
introduced. Under conditions of rapid growth,
however, the system is £orced into new policies
and actions long before the results of old
policies and actions can be properly assessed. The
situation is even worse when the growth is
exponential and the system is changing ever more
rapidly.

End of excerpts from LTG

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:02:09 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Fwd: [RunningOnEmpty2] Hybrid cars and vehicle fees in


>To: toeslist@egroups.com, Linda Wallace <pika@bigsky.net>,
> RunningOnEmpty2@yahoogroups.com
>From: "Drusha L. Mayhue" <drusha@bigsky.net>
>Delivered-To: mailing list RunningOnEmpty2@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:32:46 -0700
>Subject: [RunningOnEmpty2] Hybrid cars and vehicle fees in Oregon...
>
>This is from another list. How outrageous and ridiculous! I checked the
>website below and sure enough, the registration for hybrid cars [in Oregon] is twice
>that of regular cars. And for hybrid or electric powered motorcycle/mopeds
>it's more than 3 times that of regular mopeds and motorcycles.
>
>Drusha, Montana
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 13:52:30 -0500
>From:
>Subject: a new outrage
>
>Here's something appalling -- if true (I can hardly believe it!) -- that I
>thought you'd want to know about. Oregon recently decided to double the
>vehicle registration fees for hybrid and electric cars. It's said that the
>rationale is that owners of high-mileage vehicles do not pay their fair
>share to support highway maintenance through gasoline taxes. Thus, the
>extra registration charge compensates for their failure to buy enough gas!
>You can check out the registration fee schedule at:
>
>http://www.odot.state.or.us/dmv/Vehicles/veh_fees.htm



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:26:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins

At 11:09 AM 2/10/02, Murray Duffin wrote:

>Oh yeah, I forgot this part. 26W/sq. cm. is no big deal. See pentium
>3 specs or any large power transistor.

High power pentiums *do* dissipate power of this
order. But they have top surface areas of the
order of 16-20 cm2. Say, one fifteenth of the
power density. Also, they always have at least
forced air cooling, or they will destroy
themselves. Some of them even have their own
dedicated active cooling.

>The mounting frame will likely
>handle that load, and if not the addition of a simple finned heat
>sink will.

I don't think the mounting frame will handle it.
To get heat to the frame you would need a very
large temperature gradient in the PV itself.
Relatively very large aluminium heat sinks would
probably keep the PV from destroying itself, but
would they keep its temperature low enough for
efficiency? I don't know. I'll bet you'd still need
fans. Water cooling is very complicated and maintenance
intensive.

>My apologies for the previous note. You did remember the
>electricity. Murray



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:02:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins

At 11:00 AM 2/10/02, Murray Duffin wrote:

>Remember 30+% 0f the incident energy is removed as
>electricity. You are almost certainly exaggerating
>by implication the drawbacks.

How can anyone know?

>Anyway, the Arizona application will provide good
>data soon enough. I suspect the folks in Arizona
>have already answered these questions to their own
>satisfaction. They run an energy efficient model
>home, and the people I have talked to there are
>pretty intelligent and knowledgable. Murray

Interesting, I had an impression (without any good
basis) that this was just a lab curiosity so far.
Do you have any references to field trials?

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:26:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins

At 01:40 AM 2/8/02 +0000, Murray Duffin wrote:

>Without a concentrator your low efficiency panel
>needs 1 sq. m. of silicon to collect 1 sq. m. o f
>sunshine. With a 400 sun concentrator you need 25
>sq. cm. of silicon and a 1 sq. m. polycarbonate
>lense. The lense can be made for maybe 10% of the
>energy of the silicon. even if the frame, tracker
>etc. require 25% of the total build energy you
>have just reduced Ein by 68% at equal efficiency.
>At 2-3x efficiency you are so much better off.
>Murray

How do you know it's only 25% of the total
build energy?

You have to have motors and computer control,
gears, etc., for tracking. These complicated
mechanisms have to be maintained and repaired much
more often than unmoving low efficiency panels.
You have forgotten about cooling. Your high
efficiency panels will have to have fans and
radiators to cool them, since each square cm of
panel will have to discard a large fraction of 26
watts of heat = (1 - 0.34)(400 x 1000 W/m2 /
10,000 cm2/m2), or melt itself. If these fans fail,
the panels will be destroyed. Are they valuable
enough to have to be protected against such
failures. If so, there is further complexity.

There is enough complexity here that no one can
know whether such highly concentrating panels are
better than current technology without a lot of
analysis that has not been done.

It may be that these new panels could operate at
say 10% efficiency at much lower concentration,
say 10 to one with non-imaging optics for
concentration and no tracking and no active
cooling. A tenth as much silicon as current
technology, but the same interception area and
other costs--that might turn out to be much more
interesting. My point is that no can know without
detailed net energy analysis.

David Delaney, Ottawa




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:24:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins

At 04:24 PM 2/7/02 +0000, Murray Duffin wrote:
>Not quite the right analysis. At 400 suns you have in theory 1/400th
>the silicon, and you add a polycarbonate fresnel lense aperture that
>takes maybe 1/10th the energy of the silicon to produce. The frame
>and tracker are little changed, if you are comparing a non-
>concentrating tracking system with a concentrating system. Murray

Murray, read it again. I asked for a comparison of non-tracking
low efficiency panel to tracking hi-efficiency panel. I allowed an interception
area ratio of five low to 1 high efficiency panels. I absolutely
did not assume more than 1/400 th of the silicon for the high efficiency.
I am saying I don't know, and you don't know, which is better.

David Delaney, Ottawa


>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney <ddelaney@s...> wrote:
> > At 05:50 PM 2/1/02 +0000, Murray Duffin wrote:
> >
> > [about new 34% efficient PV requiring 400 suns]
> >
> > >My target for 2010 arrives in 2001. The Arizona purchase will move
>it
> > >from lab to production by 2003. How's that you pessimists?? Murray
> >
> > Hmm.... If it requires 400 suns for 34%
> > efficiency, then the embodied energy of its
> > concentrating equipment would have to compete with
> > ordinary PV at say 10%.
> >
> > A field of 10% efficiency PV panels would have to
> > intercept 3.4 times as great an area of sunlight
> > as these high efficiency panels. The high
> > concentration would almost certainly require
> > tracking. Lets make the ratio of areas 5:1 to
> > allows for unmoving low efficiency PV panels.
> >
> > So here's the thing: Is the embodied energy in the
> > concentrator and the steering mechanism, including
> > installation, and maintenance, for the high
> > efficiency PV less than, comparable to, or greater
> > than the embodied energy of the equivalent
> > unmoving PV panel?
> >
> > I don't know. I would need to have at least an idea
> > before I got excited.
> >
> > David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 23:28:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Scary thought

At 06:50 PM 2/5/02 -0500, KD wrote:
>...What if the CIA, M16, Mossad and other
>intelligence agencies had all the information on
>http://hubbertpeak.com and http://dieoff.com ,
>PLUS additional information that they have
>obtained by hook or by crook from private and
>national oil companies? What if all the info
>indicates that the oil reserve/resource situation
>is even WORSE than depicted by the so-called
>Cassandras?

It will happen sooner or later. Why not already?
I am sure that some people in those organizations
know. Their difficulties of communication within
their organizations, however, will be the same as
ours: denial from many sources, acquiescence in
the denial propelled by fear of the power
shifts that acknowledgement will produce, and by
fear of the reaction of interested "clients".

One thing is sure: the knowledge will not be
widespread within the security organizations for
long before it will leak out everywhere. (The
direction of the flow of general awareness may
well be in the opposite direction.) As long as it
is not widespread, the forces of denial will
marginalize it, even there. I think the situation
is, and will remain, much the same inside and
outside the security apparatus--only obvious and
immediately imminent disaster will let reality be
perceived.

However, once such knowledge is widespread within
the security apparatus (and therefore in
intellectual society generally), look out. At
that point the security apparatus will start
recommending, or even creating, "solutions". We
have discussed at length in this forum , under
Jay's tutelage, what some of those "solutions" may
be.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: "terrell_larson" <terr@terralogic.net>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:45:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Goodbye, though not so good....

At 02:51 AM 2/3/02 +0000, Terrell wrote:

>I'd like to find some good practical +ve
>solutions. I've been asking how to go about
>building energy efficient housing now for months
>with no forward progress.

Terrel asked about sources on renewable energy for
personal projects. I own many books on these
subjects. Here are the ones I have found most
useful. I have read all of these quite
thoroughly, and have worked intensively with at
least a part of each book. Try <www.abebooks.com>
for the books that are out of print. (Or for any
used book purchase. I recommend abebooks.) My
primary interest is in a cold winter climate
with hot humid summers--continental, latitude 45 degrees.

The best general advice is "insulate and conserve
first".

S. Robert Hastings and Ove Morck, eds., Solar air
systems, A design handbook, James and James
(Science Publishers) Ltd, 35-37 William Road,
London NW1 3ER, UK, 2000, 286 pp. The best (only?)
book dedicated to solar air heaters since the book
by Kornher and Zaugg (below). This book gives a
very thorough set of designs and design methods
for air heaters. It's very recent and very
European, so entirely in SI units.

Steve Kornher and Andy Zaugg, The complete
handbook of solar air heating systems, Rodale
Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania, 1984, 350. Many good
ideas and down to earth practical construction
advice. Written by guys who have built a lot of
air heaters.

J. D. Ned Nisson and Guatam Dutt, The
superinsulated home book, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, Toronto, 1985, 316 pp. Very detailed and
practical presentations of principles, problems,
and practices of superinsulation.

William A. Shurcliff, Super solar houses,
Saunders's 100%-solar, low-cost designs, Brick
House Publishing, Andover Mass., 1983, pp. 140. A
revolutionary book that turns its back on passive
solar design in favor of active solar designs to
provide 100% of space heat and most of the
domestic hot water (DHW) heat in a cold climate.
All designs use air as the collector medium.

William A. Shurcliff, New inventions in low-cost
solar heating, 100 daring schemes tried and
untried, Brick House Publishing, Andover, Mass.,
1979, 293. A delightfully stimulating book. Filled
with ideas.

William A. Shurcliff, Thermal shutters and shades,
Brick House Publishing, Andover Mass., 1980, 238
pp. An exhasutive book on this topic.

William A. Shurcliff, Solar heated buildings of
North America, 120 outstanding examples, Brick
House Publishing, Andover Mass., 1978, 293 pp.
Fascinating to see how much activity there was in
this field in the seventies and early eighties,
until Reagan torpedoed renewable energy.

William A. Shurcliff, Super insulated houses and
double envelope houses, Brick House Publishing,
Andover, Mass., 1981, 182 pp. As with everything
Shurcliff writes, filled with insight.

John A Duffie and William A. Beckman, Solar
engineering of thermal processes, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, Toronto, 1991, 919 pp. For
engineers. Mathematical. Comprehensive. A
wonderful reference. Indispensable if you really
do have to get into detailed solar thermal
engineering.

Jeffrey Cook, ed., Passive cooling, Massachussets
Institute of Engineering, Cambridge, Mass., 1989,
583 pp.

Sam Clark, The Real Goods independent builder,
designing and building a house your own way,
Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction,
Vermont, 1996, 522 pp. If you are building a
house, or having one built for you, this well
written book will sensitize you to many issues.

James Kachadorian, The passive solar house,
Chelsea Green Publishing, Whit River Junction,
Vermont, 1997, 210 pp. A very particular passive
design. Beautifully done book with wonderful
drawings. Good detailed presentation of a thermal
design method for passive solar that anyone can
do. Some good ideas, but the design has the
limitations of passive designs--you cannot get
100% space heat, and no DHW preheat.

David Lyle, The book of masonry stoves,
rediscovering an old way of warming, Brick House
Publishing, Andover Mass., 1984, 192 pp. If you
are interested in wood heat you should consider
masonry heaters. As efficient as the best steel
catalytics, as low in particulate emissions, and
safer, this old technology is relevant again.
Masonry heaters don't care whether they're fed
softwood or hardwood, they work equally well with
both.

John Schaeffer and The Real Goods Staff, The Real
Goods solar living sourcebook, Chelsea Green
Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, 1996,
689 pp. In reality, almost entirely about solar
electricity. Indispensable if you are embarking on
solar electricity.

Nick Pine's archive of his internet posts on solar
thermal aplications.
<http://www.ece.villanova.edu/~nick/> Mr. Pine's
posts are informed by good engineering knowledge
and judgment, and are loaded with practical
ideas.

You can often get very expert help with questions
about solar thermal applications on the
alt.thermal.solar newsgroup (Nick Pine founded it.)

Last but not least, if you are an engineer, or are
willing to deal with engineering handbooks, the
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers)
handbooks are a source of authoritative
information on almost everything relating to
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. Very
little directly about renewables, but many
principles, components, and sub-systems are
independent of the energy source. I own four:
Fundamentals, Applications, HVAC Systems and
Equipment, and Refrigeration.

David Delaney, Ottawa


~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

David, if it is OK with you I would like to put the above into the EnergyResources Group Files section under Energy Efficiency.

Anybody want to add to it, let's see it.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:21:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Mike Ruppert is Deluged with

At 05:16 PM 2/5/02 -0500, b wrote:
>I thought the point of Gold's questionable theories is not that oil will
>replenish, but that there is countless billions of barrels waiting to be
>discovered by deep-drilling (deeper than we do now). b

Well, if there are hydrocarbons down there, they're not oil, since oil
below 15,000 feet is quickly cracked to natural gas by the high temperature--
they're below the "oil window". See Deffeyes book.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:55:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Perilous Optimism-Entropy-Order

At 07:36 PM 2/3/02 -0800, Arthur Noll wrote:

>I don't see how this refutes my points at all, David.

I'm not aiming to refute your points in general,
just to correct a particular mistaken statement
about entropy.

>I don't see how the
>entropy of a true adiabatic system could change.

After a sufficiently long time, after reaching
equilibrium, it won't. But an isolated system that
is not in equilibrium will progress toward
equilibrium--its entropy will increase gradually
or rapidly, but in any case inexorably. The
objection that true adiabatic isolation is
impossible is irrelevant--we can easily, in at
least some cases, create walls, or postulate
walls, sufficiently adiabatic that entropy changes
resulting from interactions with the environment
are insignificant compared to those due to
internal energy flows.

My reason for introducing the adiabatic system was
to make the point that the Clausius integral (the
integral of dQ/T over the surface of the system
during a heat transfer) does not in general define
the entropy change within the system in question.
For an isolated system that is not in equilibrium
the Clausius integral is always zero but the
entropy of the system does increase until the
system is in equilibrium. Similarly the Clausius
integral does not, *in general*, compute the
entropy change in any system-- isolated, closed,
or open. The condition that it does compute the
entropy change of the system are restrictive--the
system has to be closed *and in equilibrium*
during the heat transfers over which integration
takes place. Being in equilibrium means, among
other things, that its temperature is uniform
throughout at all times.

For any closed system, including systems not in
equilibrium, the Clausius integral computes
the entropy *transfer* into the system from its
environment. The entropy transferred into the
system is the negative of the entropy transferred
from the environment. If the system is open, then
you have also to take into account entropy carried
across the system boundary by mass transport.

If system is closed and cyclic, returning
periodically to the same state, the Clausius
integral over a complete cycle is always negative
unless the system is always in equilibrium during
the integration, in which case the Clausius
integral is zero. The negative of this cyclic
Clausius integral, always a positive quantity, is
exactly the direct entropy contribution of the
system to the surroundings. But unless the system
is in equilibrium with its surroundings throughout
the cycle (very unlikely) still more entropy is
created in the surroundings due to heat transfer
through temperature gradients near the system.

David Delaney, Ottawa




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:35:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: [energyresources] Mike Ruppert is Deluged with

At 11:31 AM 2/5/02 -0800, Dale Allen Pfeiffer wrote:

>Concerning government involvement in 9-11, there
>is a huge body of evidence to support this
>thesis.

I'm with Ron on this. God knows I'm as reasonably
cynical about W and his cronies as the next
radical, but any one of 1) thinking he or his
cronies would want to do this, 2) thinking they
would be crazy enough to think they could get away
with it, 3) thinking they could in fact get away
with it, is just paranoid nonsense.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:26:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: [energyresources] Mike Ruppert is Deluged with

At 10:26 AM 2/5/02 -0800, Ron Patterson wrote:
>I think most of us on this list believe that there
>will be a massive dieoff. I don’t think any of
>would call it murder.

Ron

Maybe the article was referring to Jay's very plausible
belief that some powerful group will suddenly wake up
to the impending awfulness and decide to improve their
chances by anticipating it.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:06:33 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Yesterday, Today and Tommorrow --Was

At 09:05 AM 2/5/02 -0600, MH wrote:

>"DOE's National Renewable Energy Lab (suggests)
>the entire U.S. electricity load could be
>generated by a swath of solar panels covering just
>100 square miles.

Someone at DOE suffers from number numbness.

Let's assume 100% efficiency of conversion of
sunlight to electricity (a ridiculous assumption)
and 1000 watts insolation per square meter for 10
hours a day (very high).

100 square miles is 2.6e8 square meters.

2.6e8 m2 x 1000 watts/m2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 10
hours/day x 365 days/year = 3.4e18 joules/year (3.4 EJ/year).

3.4e18 J is 9.5% of the 36e18 J (36 quads) of
electricity that the US generated in 1999.

If the efficiency of the solar panels is reduced
to a more reasonable 10%, 100 square miles of
panels yields 0.95% of the electricity generated
in 1999.

Now, if he meant 100 miles *square*, (10,000
square miles, 2.6e10 square meters) rather than
100 square miles, the statement begins to seem
within striking distance of reality....

However, to get 10 percent efficiency, you have to
orient the panels well to the sun, and this
requires substantially more than a square foot of
land for each square foot of panel, to prevent
mutual shade. Let's say, conservatively, a
factor of two.

So, a more sensible statement would have required
20,000 square miles of land, even if only 10,000
square miles of panel.

If the energy recuperation period for the panels
were 3 years, and they were built evenly over ten
years, the US would be expanding its electrical
energy output by 3.6e18 joules per year, which,
because of the 3 year energy recuperation period,
would require an energy investment of 3 x 3.6e18
joules per year or 11 EJ (11 quads) per year. This
investment would produce only the panels, not
their mounts, or their installation and
transmission. This 11 EJ per year is roughly a
third of all the electricity produced per year in
the US today, or 10% of all current annual energy
use.

This 11 EJ is such a large fraction of the GDP
that the total cost could be estimated pretty well
by taking 11 EJ as a fraction of the total US
energy use of 100 EJ times the GDP, say 10 percent
of six trillion dollars per year, or 600 billion
dollars per year. (This is close to $5 per watt,
pretty close to current panel prices.)
This resulting $/W is much
less important than the fact that any project that
uses 5 or 10% of the total available energy in a
year is going to represent 5 or 10 percent of the
GDP.) Spread it out over 20 years, and you could
get it down to 5% of GDP, say 300 billion dollars
per year--just for panels, never mind their mounts,
installation, land, maintenance, inverters, transmission.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:54:48 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Entropy web sites

At 05:17 AM 2/4/02 +0000, Albert Darimont wrote:

>The web page below features a clear explanation of
>the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, written by a
>Professor Frank Lambert for university students.
>
>http://www.secondlaw.com/default.htm

Many thanks for this stunningly good reference on
the second law and entropy. The site refers to
three other sites by the same author, Prof. Frank
Lambert. The sites deal in various levels of
detail with entropy. I found the evening I spent
reading these sites very rewarding. Even the most
detailed site, <http://www.2ndlaw.com>, is, accept
for the last section on free energy, accessible to
almost everyone. Even people who know a lot about
thermodynamics will benefit from the extreme
clarity of Lambert's elementary presentation.

Of particular benefit to me was Lambert's
clarification of the relationship of entropy to
order, disorder, and probability. Lambert has
published a separate article on this subject in
the Journal of Chemical Education:

Lambert, Frank L., "Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and
Disorderly Dorm Rooms - Examples of Entropy
Increase? Nonsense!" J. Chem. Educ. 1999 76 1385.

This article is available on the web at:
<http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html>

Lambert explains clearly how the second law favors
the spontaneous creation of complex compounds, and
even hints, with hurricanes as an example, how it
favors the spontaneous creation of self organizing
systems.

Here's Lambert's description of <http://www.2ndlaw.com>

><http://www.2ndlaw.com> has five parts.
>The first, "Entropy and the second law of
>thermodynamics" gives a superior introduction to
>entropy from the standpoint of molecular behavior
>("molecular thermodynamics") and quantized
>microstates, but does not introduce math or
>quantum mechanics. The second, "The second law of
>thermodynamics is a tendency" is almost a
>repetition of material from secondlaw.com. The
>third, "Obstructions to the second law make life
>possible" develops the concept of activation
>energies as does secondlaw.com but goes further in
>showing the relationship of endothermic reactions
>to energy input, including some material on
>substances found in space: how they could arise.
>The fourth, "The second law of thermodyamics and
>evolution", responds to many questions sent to
>secondlaw.com by individuals who did not realize
>that the second law favors the formation of more
>complex compounds from the simple elements. The
>fifth, "Entropy and Gibbs free energy", is only
>for chemistry students, whereas all preceding
>material was for science and for non-science
>majors. It really should be named "The Gibbs
>equation is ALL entropy!" – just to surprise chem
>students who have to work with it. (It’s an
>exciting discovery to most students to realize
>that the "conflict" between enthalpy and entropy
>in the equation is misleading: The enthalpy in
>Gibbs is q that can move into the surroundings and
>be the surroundings’ entropy. Makes things a lot
>clearer after you think about if for a few
>minutes….)

David Delaney, Ottawa





Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 21:40:59 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Perilous Optimism-Entropy-Order

At 09:48 AM 2/2/02 -0800, Arthur Noll wrote:

>How many times must I go over this. No, No, NO!
>First, this equation gives only changes in
>entropy. And as you can see from looking at it, as
>a single system loses heat, the changes possible
>will be less and less. When you look at the
>system that the heat is lost into, and consider
>the two systems as a whole, it's change in entropy
>must be calculated on the basis of heat flow in or
>out of this larger system.

This is just wrong. The entropy of an isolated
system (a system with an adiabatic wall dividing
it from the universe) can change without *any*
heat transfer across its boundary. (Any change in
such a system increases its entropy.) The integral
of dQ/dT over the surface bounding a closed (no
mass transfer) but not isolated (energy exchange
with the environment allowed) system gives, in
general, only a part of the entropy change of the
system during the heat transfer. The integral
represents the whole entropy change of the system
*only* if (1) the system remains in equilibrium
within itself and with its environment during the
whole heat transfer, or (2) the system state
happens to be identical before and after the heat
transfer. Any non-equilibrium changes within a
closed system during a heat transfer across its
system boundary means that the entropy change
within the system during the heat transfer is
*greater* than the integral of dQ/t on the
boundary. This is true even if such
non-equilibrium changes are due to the heat
transfer, e.g. when a heat transfer across the
system boundary creates a temperature gradient
within the system.

>The previously considered heat flow is now just an
>internal heat flow, has nothing to do with the
>definition given by the equation.
> The reason the concept of entropy as given by this
>equation, works with engine problems, is because
>people are only using it on single systems.

No. It always "works". The heat and entropy (in
mass flows) transfer across the boundary of an
engine characterizes its total creation of entropy
because the heat and entropy flows are considered
over a *cycle* of the engine, 1.e. a period
between identical internal states of the engine.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:24:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: High-efficiency solar cell wins

At 05:50 PM 2/1/02 +0000, Murray Duffin wrote:

[about new 34% efficient PV requiring 400 suns]

>My target for 2010 arrives in 2001. The Arizona purchase will move it
>from lab to production by 2003. How's that you pessimists?? Murray

Hmm.... If it requires 400 suns for 34%
efficiency, then the embodied energy of its
concentrating equipment would have to compete with
ordinary PV at say 10%.

A field of 10% efficiency PV panels would have to
intercept 3.4 times as great an area of sunlight
as these high efficiency panels. The high
concentration would almost certainly require
tracking. Lets make the ratio of areas 5:1 to
allows for unmoving low efficiency PV panels.

So here's the thing: Is the embodied energy in the
concentrator and the steering mechanism, including
installation, and maintenance, for the high
efficiency PV less than, comparable to, or greater
than the embodied energy of the equivalent
unmoving PV panel?

I don't know. I would need to have at least an idea
before I got excited.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:05:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] EROEI perspective

At 03:27 PM 1/27/02 +1100, Denis Frith wrote:

>I believe the top priority of this list should be
>to convey the message that society needs to turn
>to using the energy flows rather than the
>depleting store as quickly as possible.

It is too late for that message to prevent
disaster. In any case, vested interests and our
disposition to avoid and marginalize doom sayers
will effectively prevent the message being
heard until disaster is upon us. I hope we may
learn some things that will be useful to decision
makers when realization strikes. It will then be
time to make huge investments of *energy* at a
time when investing wrongly will risk the survival
of civilization.

>The use of EROEI does not help in that regard.

In one way, it does. There is too much
unreasonable confidence that we will be saved by a
smooth transition to renewable energy sources to
replace oil and gas. Because of the low EROEI of
these alternatives, oil and gas can be replaced
only partially by them--an economy based on them
will operate at a much lower rate of energy use,
and get going only after massive long term energy
investment. Understanding this fact certainly convinced
me of the truth of the message.

Nonetheless, you are right, EROEI will not help
much in sending the message you want to send--only
disaster itself will do that. Maybe EROEI will
help us choose rationally between alternatives
when disaster has sent the message.

David Delaney, Ottawa






Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:38:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Efficient computation of embodied

I have addressed some of the comments I have
received about my paper on computation of embodied
energy. I have added an abstract, and I've
improved the arguments that the procedure gives
the right answer.

See: Efficient computation of embodied
energy from a dependency tree. v1.5 January 22

<http://www.geocities.com/~dmdelaney/Net_embodied_energy.html>

Abstract: Presents a procedure to
compute the energy embodied in an object as
specified in its energy dependency tree. The
procedure uses estimates of the embodied energy of
constituent and contributing objects to guide its
decisions about which parts of the infinite tree
to visit. The costs of objects and services may be
used to generate suitable estimates. The accuracy
of the procedure is insensitive to the accuracy of
the estimates. The procedure visits only the
number of nodes of the tree required to achieve
the desired accuracy.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:47:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Efficient computation of embodied

At 05:10 PM 1/22/02 +0000, mduffin wrote:

>Two such human beings produce two children.
>Each child at birth embodies 2"m"/2 for it's parents, but also
>embodies like amounts for grandparents, great gran... etc. That
>seems to me to be the machine analogy.
>On the other hand we could ignore the embodied energy in the human
>being, and use statistics for the average daily calorie consumption
>of adults times the fraction of the day spent at work, and add in
>some amount for transportation, which will be small enough that, as
>you note, even a fairly large error will not be significant.
>I guess my question is "do you ignore the embodied energy of people,
>which does not become trivially small in one or two generations as
>does that for machines?" Murray

Let's assume we agree to ignore the energy
embodied in the people. I would then disagree that
their appropriate energy input to their work is
their calorie consumption and transportation
energies times a utilization factor. This is too
little. I agree with Gene Tyner that the energy
required to obtain the workers services is the sum
of all energies purchased, direct and embodied,
with his salary. I did not state this view in the
document, because the procedure of the document is
useful with several different views on this
matter.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:47:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Efficient computation of embodied

Murray

Thanks for these comments.

To include the indirect energy input of labor, you
must use an estimate, because tracking the energy
expenditure of a person for these purposes is, of
course, impracticable.

We would define a labor node with one child. The
child would be a direct energy node representing
your estimate of the total energy consumption of
the people contributing the labor. The labor node
would specify the contribution factor of the labor
pool to the object of which it was a child.

Your estimate of the energy would probably be
closely related to cost x E/GDP.

You refer to pairs of parent nodes having common
children. In energy dependency trees, each node
can have only a single parent. If the embodied
energy of an object depends on that of another in
several different ways, the contributing object
appears multiple times in different parts of the
tree. I may have tripped over gender-neutral
language here. Exclusive use of either "mother",
or "father" would have made this clearer.

David Delaney, Ottawa


At 11:57 PM 1/21/02 +0000, mduffin3 wrote:

>I can buy this approach, and I agree that you quickly get to the
>point where small energy inputs are subsumed in the margin of error.
>However several critics of embodied energy computations insist on
>including people energy. How do we do that, either with this
>mechanism or outside of it?
>If we treat people as analogous to machinery and equipment (they are
>often interchangeable to a degree) then we do not spread the
>progenitor's energy input over countless outputs making it
>meaninglessly small. Most pairs of parents have very few children,
>and adding the energy put into prior generations from conception to
>parenthood (that energy needed to "make" a person) would become a
>very large number. If we don't treat people as analogous to
>equipment, how do we deal with them?
>Personally I prefer to leave people out of the computation, or if
>they are included, include only their current energy consumption that
>goes into getting them to the job, and that portion of keeping them
>alive that is expended on the job.
>However I'm not sure that will satisfy the purists and the
>pessimists. Murray
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:19:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Efficient computation of embodied energy

Ted

Thank's for these comments.
I will consider them carefully for the next draft.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 11:34 AM 1/21/02 -0800, Ted Swarts wrote:

>Well, David, I just finished reading your procedure and I feel you're well
>on the way to fulfilling your purpose and that, on an intuitive level at
>least, you have shown, conceptually, that embodied energy, which is the most
>abstract component of any Net Energy analysis, may be determined, to a
>reasonable degree of accuracy, within a relatively simple model.
>
> From a broad perspective, looking at your document critically, here are some
>first impressions that may assist you.
>
>I would have preferred the use of common language to awkward terms like
>'life-fraction' (line 18) and 'bounded error' (line 120). In general, some
>readers may be aware of their meanings, but many more, I'm sure, will be
>forced to ignore or infer them and, in the process, find the fluidity of
>your message broken, along with their comprehension of it. This same
>argument applies to the use of abstract technical terms, like 'recursively'
>(line 26), and to the use of uncommon acronyms like cf and ucf. Even within
>the description of your algorithm, the acronyms are of little benefit.
>
>I would have liked some graphics to accompany your verbal description of the
>model. I'm sure you're aware of this, but I'll mention it anyway, just in
>case. If you'd like some help with this, let me know.
>
>As to the logic that ties your process together, it seems, at first blush,
>to be tight. As to your algorithm, in particular, I'd like to defer comment
>until I examine it further.
>
>Validity of your logic aside, at this point I can say that I would have
>liked an explicit reference to inheritance within the hierarchal topology of
>the model, and the role such could play in the creation of reusable objects
>or classes of objects. This relates to the use of the object oriented
>programming metaphor, which, in my mind, is the most elegant way to
>implement your algorithm. If the reusability of objects created by a
>disparate group of users is a goal, which I believe it should be, your
>process may be integrated nicely within a web service under, for example,
>Microsoft's .Net platform.
>
>Lastly, I would have liked a more detailed description of the scope of your
>process's applications. Your process is not just a part of Net Energy
>analyses, but is also a vital part of sustainability analyses, especially
>within the construction industry.
>
>All in all, David, you did a great job and I'm encouraged by it.
>
>Ted Swarts
>Kelowna, British Columbia
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Delaney" <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
>To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:55 PM
>Subject: [energyresources] Efficient computation of embodied energy
>
>
> > I have written a document describing a procedure
> > to compute embodied energy accurately and
> > efficiently.
> >
> > <http://www.geocities.com/~dmdelaney/Net_embodied_energy.html>
> >
> > Title: Efficient computation of embodied energy
> > from a dependency tree
> >
> > It's purpose is to show that accurate and
> > efficient evaluation of embodied energy is
> > feasible.
> >
> > It runs fast, but, more importantly, it requires
> > input of the only the smallest possible
> > number of data items.
> >
> > I would be very grateful for reports of
> > bugs, lack of clarity, or typos.
> >
> > David Delaney, Ottawa
> >



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:01:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Efficient computation of embodied energy

The January 20 version is too efficient!

It runs in approximately zero time since the loop body
never executes!

This experienced programmer committed the most elementary
of programming blunders by placing the termination test
at the wrong end of the loop.

In the January 22 version, I have changed the
while do od loop into a repeat until loop.

<http://www.geocities.com/~dmdelaney/Net_embodied_energy.html>

The line numbers are unchanged.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 04:55 PM 1/20/02 -0500, I wrote:
>I have written a document describing a procedure
>to compute embodied energy accurately and
>efficiently.
>
><http://www.geocities.com/~dmdelaney/Net_embodied_energy.html>
>
>Title: Efficient computation of embodied energy
> from a dependency tree
>
>It's purpose is to show that accurate and
>efficient evaluation of embodied energy is
>feasible.
>
>It runs fast, but, more importantly, it requires
>input of the only the smallest possible
>number of data items.
>
>I would be very grateful for reports of
>bugs, lack of clarity, or typos.
>
>David Delaney, Ottawa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:55:26 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Efficient computation of embodied energy

I have written a document describing a procedure
to compute embodied energy accurately and
efficiently.

<http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/embodied_energy_eval.pdf>

Title: Efficient computation of embodied energy
from a dependency tree

It's purpose is to show that accurate and
efficient evaluation of embodied energy is
feasible.

It runs fast, but, more importantly, it requires
input of the only the smallest possible
number of data items.

I would be very grateful for reports of
bugs, lack of clarity, or typos.

David Delaney, Ottawa







Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:44:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Energy efficiency

Here's the source of the data:

<http://www.ecoworld.com/Articles/May23_BTU_GNP.cfm#Table3>

Is this what you are asking?

David Delaney, Ottawa


At 02:31 PM 1/18/02 -0600, Bill Grazier wrote:
>Just for kicks, who is going to come up with $GNP/Capita??? to see who is using energy more productively. Bill of MN
>========================



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:40:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Embedded Energy Diagram

At 12:34 AM 1/17/02 +0000, Michael Dewolf wrote:

>The embedded energy diagram is my way of showing how impossible
>quantifying embedded energy is.

Your energy diagram does not show what you say
it does. No diagram could, since the proposition
it would have to establish is false.

Give me the price of any object and the year and
country of its manufacture and I will quantify its
embodied energy in a minute using E/GDP times price.

I have just falsified your statement. There are other
more complicated ways of falsifying it.

You will object "Any reasonable person would have
understood that I meant quantification accurate
enough to be useful is impossible."

This modified statement is also obviously false.
Quantification of embodied energy is done
routinely in many industries, and has been for
many decades, in order to engineer improvements to
processes. I challenge you to find any large scale
manufacturer of a commodity industrial material
that does not have a view of how much energy is
embodied in a kilogram of its product. Such
quantification is useful to them, (and to those of
their users who need to be able to predict changes
in the price of their energy intensive inputs) so
I have falsified the modified statement.

I could go on imagining more objections of your
objections and weaker versions of your statement.
They would all start with "Any reasonable
person...", and they would all be obviously false
until we got to something as specific as the
following: "Quantification of embodied energy
cannot be done with sufficient accuracy to decide
under what, if any, circumstances PV has an EROEI
greater than 3 and less than 5." I believe that
this statement is false, and that even weaker
statements are false. I believe there is good
evidence that it is false. But I cannot yet prove
it. I believe that proving its falsity is
substantial project.

Statements about the adequacy of accuracy are
useful only if they relate in a verifiable way to
particular uses of the quantities measured or
estimated.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:39:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Energy efficiency and EROEI

At 10:13 AM 1/18/02 +0000, Michael Dewolf wrote:

[speaking of the E/GDP times cost method of
estimating energy dissipation]

>When these types of calculations are used for EROEI, what happens
>when the currency drops?
>
>Answer: The embedded energy drops overnight too. :)

Well, yes and no. Can two pieces of concrete made
by exactly the same physical industrial process
under different economic conditions have different
embodied energies? Certainly.

Does a change in economic conditions change the
embodied energy of a pre-existing piece
of concrete? Certainly not.

For a multi-year project, the E/GDP ratio times
cost is taken at the time and place and under the
rules in which each years expenditures were made.
For greatest accuracy in years in which radical
economic changes took place, the year could be
broken into parts if suitable statistics were
available, or some compensating adjustment could
be made for the different conditions in different
parts of such a year. Events in periods
subsequent to an estimate will not change the
estimate.

David Delaney, Ottawa




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:34:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Energy efficiency and EROEI forecasting

Wow. Yes, Japan uses 3500 Btu/$GNP and 142
million Btu/capita. I left the "million" off
the per capita quantities inadvertently in my original post.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 10:52 AM 1/17/02 -0800, Matt Adams wrote:
> > Even high tech societies with high standards
> > of living use very different amounts of energy per
> > capita and per unit of economic production.
> >
> > According to documents on the Ecoworld web site,
> > the US used approximately 12,000 Btu/$GNP and 330
> > <million> Btu per capita in 1995. In the same year France
> > used 5600 Btu/$GNP and 150 <million>Btu/capita. Germany
> > used 5300 Btu/$GNP and 160 <million> Btu/capita.
>
>What about Japan?
>Matt (Oregon)
>
> >
> > EOREIs for energy production projects in these
> > counties will differ by corresponding amounts.
> >
> > This data might present an opportunity to help
> > develop EROEI forecasts. As fuels become more
> > expensive, our society will become more and more
> > efficient in its use of energy. EROEI calculations
> > done on the basis of the current US economy are
> > therefore pessimistic for the decline. Comparing
> > current EROEI computations for different countries
> > today might help develop better EROEI forecasts.
> >
> > David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:33:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation

At last, something I can agree with:

At 09:16 PM 1/17/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:

>I may be mixing social concerns and energy accounting but it cannot
>be avoided. If a leader builds a dam with no concern for the workers,
>it is a very different energy situation than if the workers are
>giving a similar standard of living and similar health care as the
>leader. In addition, the leader will ask himself how hard he can push
>the workers before they either revolt or die. If the leader decides
>that the people need more food or entertainment, then more energy
>will beed to be expended to get the dam built. On the other hand, the
>leader may be able to find a religious method to get the workers to
>produce more with very little additional energy. Of course religion
>can also go the other way and the people may be inspired by God to
>demand more health care or time off.

I agree with everything above except, perhaps, for
the first sentence. (I am not sure what it means
so cannot be sure I disagree with it.) I have
never disagreed with any of the other points. All
of the above factors do affect the numerical value
of the EROEI of the dam.

Now, if I can just get across the following
message 1) although these factors affect the VALUE
of the EROEI of the dam, 2) they do not affect the
definition of the EROEI of the dam, or the
procedure for computing EOREI, 3) once we *know*
which of the above factors are in effect in the
construction of a particular dam, and their
impact, the numerical value of the eroei *OF THE
DAM* is independent of who computes it if the
computers are honest and competent.

In many cases, the state of these factors will not
be unique to a particular project--the project
will be typical of similar projects within the
society in question, and statistical estimating
techniques, such as the E/GDP x cost method will
give reliable answers.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:18:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Energy sources

At 11:10 PM 1/17/02 +1100, Denis Frith wrote:
> You used the terms 'primary energy source' and 'secondary
>energy source'. I realize these terms are in common use in energy
>literature but I believe they contribute to the misunderstanding that
>the majority of people have about energy supply. It does not help
>them realize that there is only one source of energy, nature. All
>humanity can do with all its intellectual creativity and
>technological innovation is make it available in a form that meets
>society's needs and wants, for the time being.

OK, give me better term, call it X, than "primary
energy source" to distinguish sources of energy
for human use that have not been transformed from
energy that humans have previously transformed
from another source.

Whatever the word or words chosen for X, it must
have the above definition, so that the following
statements are true: Fossil fuels are Xs.
Batteries are not Xs. An energy source cannot
serve as an X unless its EROEI is greater than 1.

I need such a term. We need such a term.

I think you will have a hard time coming up with
a more natural term than "primary energy source".

David Delaney, Ottawa

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

So:

Primary energy source is one taken raw from nature and secondary energy source is the product of a primary source modified by technology.

Thus crude petroleum is a primary source and gasoline, a refined product of crude petroleum, is a secondary source.

Sounds both OK and useful to me.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:16:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation

At 03:59 AM 1/17/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:
>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney <ddelaney@s...> wrote:
> > >You seem to think that because EROEI has dimensions of
> > >energy/energy then it must be a scientific fact.
> >
> > This is a meaningless statement.
> >
>
>Uh David, are you familiar with dimensional analysis?

Yes.

> From your response, it seems that you call my statement
> meaningless because you do not understand it.

It is true that I don't understand your statement,
but it is not because of any problem with
dimensional analysis. IT'S BECAUSE YOUR SENTENCE
CONFUSES CATEGORIES AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ASCRIBED A
MEANING. You keep missing the following point: a
procedure for using the definition of eroei explicitly
discussed in this group to compute the eroei of a nuclear
plant, say, does not contain any dependencies on
point of view, or personal values. This is not a
matter of science, it is a matter of DEFINITION.

>Again David, do you understand what I am saying? does it not make
>sense to you that an investment for a serf is different than an
>investment for a lord?

Again, you are confusing categories. The concept
of invested energy has a technical and restricted
relationship to the general concept "investment".
The definition of EROEI we are working with in ER
has nothing to do with anyone's attitude to a
state of affairs or point of view.

When computing the eroei of a nuclear plant, if
two people get different answers then either 1)
one or both are using different definitions of eroei,
or 2) one or both has made a mistake.

>In out fomula: EROEI = energy returned/energy
>invested we have an investment in the denominator. I am pointing out
>that who is doing the investing and who is reaping the return has a
>huge influence on the final value calculated.

Only in the sense that they may be tempted by
their personal or political interest to make a
mistake. But such mistakes can always be detected
by a competent disinterested observer. If Andrew
and Bob claim to be using a common definition of
EROEI that does not contain dependencies on point
of view, a competent disinterested observer cannot
say "Well, Andrew and Bob calculated different
EROEIs for the nuclear plant, but each answer is
valid from its author's point of view."

Granted, people may, because of their interests,
favor one or the other definition of eorei or
procedure for computing it. This is why an
objective standard is important. This brings me
back to my basic point. The definitions of EROEI
that have been discussed explicitly in this group
exclude point of view. You appear to be working
with an implicit definition that includes point of
view. You seem to be saying that EROEI as you
understand it would be of little use. I agree with
you.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:29:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation

At 05:07 PM 1/16/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:
>David,
>
>There is much to respond to but I am running out of time and must get
>to work. You talk about different primary energy sources but the only
>energy sources in the future will be the sun and nuclear (yeah, I
>know the sun is nuclear too).

The "primary" in primary energy refers only to the
position of the energy source with respect to
human society. A primary energy source is one by
which disposable energy enters society. A secondary source is
one which repackages energy from a primary source.
A tertiary ....

Fossil fuels are the main primary energy sources
for human society now.


>It seems that our major misunderstanding is when I say "return on
>investment for whom?" This point is what I have been writing about
>all this time and I am not sure what else I can add.

Your writings are confused, or you are using a different definition
of EROEI, one I cannot guess from context.

>You seem to
>think that because EROEI has dimensions of energy/energy then it must
>be a scientific fact.

This is a meaningless statement.

>I have been trying to point out that the value
>of energy that is in the denomenator is different for different
>people.

This statement cannot have anything to do with EROEI as it's
defined by most people on this list.

>If a serf were to run the formula, he would put a different
>value in the denomenator than a lord would.

Then one or the other, or both, are simply incompetent.

>This may be an important
>enough a point that I will give an axample when I have more time.
>
>Gregson



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: gtyner@mmcable.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:20:04 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Energy efficiency and EROEI forecasting

Even high tech societies with high standards
of living use very different amounts of energy per
capita and per unit of economic production.

According to documents on the Ecoworld web site,
the US used approximately 12,000 Btu/$GNP and 330
Btu per capita in 1995. In the same year France
used 5600 Btu/$GNP and 150 Btu/capita. Germany
used 5300 Btu/$GNP and 160 Btu/capita.

EOREIs for energy production projects in these
counties will differ by corresponding amounts.

This data might present an opportunity to help
develop EROEI forecasts. As fuels become more
expensive, our society will become more and more
efficient in its use of energy. EROEI calculations
done on the basis of the current US economy are
therefore pessimistic for the decline. Comparing
current EROEI computations for different countries
today might help develop better EROEI forecasts.

David Delaney, Ottawa







Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: jean.laherrere@wanadoo.fr
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:55:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Oldest North Sea oil field to start

At 02:25 PM 1/16/02 +0100, neil_gall wrote:
>Meanwhile, on the energy resources front...

<big grin>

Interesting. I would love to know what the "new"
technology is. I would love to know when it was
new, and what really has changed to make the
field economically viable. Did the technology
exist when the field was closed? Is the reopening
due to the technology, or just today's price? Or
is it what these companies are expecting to happen
in the future? These stories can be so
tantalizing.

If Jean Laherrere is listening, I'd be very
interested in his perspective on this.

David Delaney, Ottawa


>BBC Wednesday, 16 January, 2002, 09:47 GMT
>Oil field to produce after 10 year break
>
>It is hoped production will begin in 2003
>Britain's oldest North Sea oil field is on course to start producing again - 10 years after it was closed down and abandoned.
>In a unique step, the UK Government has issued licences to redevelop the Argyll Field and its sister fields using new technology.
>It is hoped oil will flow again from Argyll by 2003.
>The Argyll Field produced Britain's first North Sea oil in 1975, three months ahead of BP's Forties Field.
>But 10 years ago Argyll and the nearby Duncan and Innes fields were abandoned after they were no longer considered economically viable.
>However, more than half of their oil reserves remain untapped.
>Now for the first time in the North Sea, the three old fields are to be redeveloped through technological advance.
>The Aberdeen-based oil company, Tuscan Energy, and its partner, Acorn, have been awarded government licenses.
>In August 2001, new figures showed that oil production in the UK fell to its lowest level in six years.
>Economists from the Royal Bank of Scotland published statistics which showed that production fell below two million barrels a day during June last year.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1763000/1763008.stm



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:24:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] EROEI perspective

Denis

You make several points:

1) EROEI does not carry the second law message that
everything has some inefficiency, everything runs
down, eventually to dusty death.
2) EROEI does not carry the first
law message that input energy equals output energy
and that there is no free lunch.
3) EROEI does not carry the message that fossil
fuel inputs to energy production represent depleting stocks.
4) EROEI does not carry the message that fossil
fuel pollutes and wind, e.g., does not.
5) EROEI fails in what you apparently regard as its
duties of representation with respect to 1-4 above
because it regards non-invested inputs as free.

1, 2, 3, and 4 are true. 5 is wrong headed.

EOREI does not have a duty to carry the messages
of the first and second laws. They do very well on their
own. It's computation, on the other hand, does have a duty
to *respect* these laws. For example, if we use in the numerator
an output energy that is not compatible with either the first
or second laws as applied to the process under study, then
we have just made an elementary error.

EOREI is just one tool by which to evaluate energy
production projects. Attention must of course be
paid to depleting stocks and pollution. EROEI
matters because we are running out of oil and gas
and have to decided what to do about it. We need a
tool that says here are the *energy supply*
consequences of the alternatives. The alternatives
will have other consequences as well, but those
consequences are not the job of EROEI.

One thing at a time.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:45:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation

At 08:09 PM 1/15/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:

>My asertion is that it does not matter whether the EROEI is less than
>one or not.

Does not matter for what? Are you saying there is
no context in which EROEI is important? If not,
try to be less sweepingly confusing.

>Even if the EROEI were zero, if a political leader wants
>to make alcohol then it will be made.

Perhaps, but if alcohol does not have an EROEI
greater than one, producing it creates a
diminishment of available energy, rather than the
hoped for augmentation. If the leader bets on such
alcohol to replace a diminishing *primary* energy
supply, he impoverishes his citizens and himself.
Does that matter?

>In addition when talking about
>EROEI, we must always ask "for whom?" The EROEI may be less than 1
>for the common people but if it is positive for the leader then the
>alcohol will be made.

It is very hard to understand what you may mean by
this. On its face it's confused nonsense. We must
*never* ask "for whom". The EROEI of an energy
production project, or a fuel production project
*in the context of a particular economy and taxation
system* is a matter of physics, chemistry,
material flows, energy flows, and arithmetic. It
is a property of the project and is independent of
who computes it, provided she is competent to do
EROEI calculations.

It is true that a political leader might
manipulate the EROEI of a project by manipulating
taxes. But once the leader has finished playing
with the rules, the EROEI is the same for
everyone, leader and follower. It was the same for
everyone before he changed the rules too, but had
a different value. The two different sets of
affairs-- higher EREOI and lower EROEI--might have
different attractions for different people, BUT
ONLY RULES, TAX LAWS, AND PHYSICAL THINGS affect
the numerical value of the EROEI of a project.
Point of view does not.

EROEI is not some vague measure of desirability or
monetary profit. For these measures you can ask
"Desirable to whom?", "Profitable for whom", there
is no sensible similar question for EROEI. You
appear to think that one can talk about EROEI in
this way. Well, one of two things is true: either
you are just confused, or you have in mind a very
different definition of EROEI. If it's the latter,
you should seriously consider providing a precise
definition of it so we can decide if we want to
discuss it with you. As it is now, you are
creating confusion.

>In addition, even if it is zero for everyone,
>if there is any good reason to make it then it will be made.

If the "it" is to provide primary energy, and its
EROEI is known to be less than one IT IS A LOGICAL
IMPOSSIBILITY FOR THERE TO BE ANY GOOD REASONS TO
BUILD "IT", there can only be insane or
criminally corrupt reasons.

It is obvious that there can be good reasons to
produce non-primary energy sources with EROEI
less than 1. Batteries are the obvious example.
Under certain conditions, fuels would be another.
If this is your point, you are preaching to the converted.
I doubt that anyone on the list disputes it. This
point in no way qualifies or limits the utility of EROEI.

David Delaney, Ottawa




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:21:58 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Book on net energy

I think I recall someone recently posting a
comment about a newish book on net energy.

I was too busy at the time to make a note, and now
I cannot find the post.

Can someone repost the description of the book? Or
send to me?

Thanks.

David Delaney, Ottawa

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

On Amazon it is:

Net Energy Analysis and the Energy Requirements of Energy Systems:
by Daniel T. Spreng
List Price: $77.00

I will see if my copy has been returned by the last borrower.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:56:48 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation

At 04:29 PM 1/15/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:

>I feel that we have come to a point where we pretty much agree or at
>least understand one another. I have never said that EROEI does not
>have its uses and I can imagine that a pretty good definition of
>investment could be worked out.

Fair enough.

>I have protested when people have
>said that in the future things that have an EROEI less than one will
>not be built or produced.

It would be tragic if we were to build *primary
energy systems* with an EROEI less than one. Many
people would then die unnecessarily. That is why
EROEI matters. That is why it must be calculated
and predicted.

(Actually, some larger number as yet unknown
will be the acceptable minimum.)

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:49:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: EROEI an explanation

At 05:33 AM 1/15/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:
>David,
>
>your definition of invested does not work out. In a solar cell, are
>you saying that the sunlight is energy that you have invested? The
>sunlight could be used to heat water or grow plants instead, but I
>would not consider it to be energy invested. Ah but this is my point,
>the concept of investment is pretty nebulous and really depends upon
>your economic system.

Gregson,

The *answer* you get when you compute EROEI *does*
depend on the economic system,and the date of
construction of generating facility but

1) THE *CONCEPT AND DEFINITION* OF EROEI DOES
*NOT* OTHERWISE DEPEND ON THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM
OR DATE OF CONSTRUCTION, in particular

2) THERE NOTHING NEBULOUS, OR DEPENDENT ON THE
ECONOMY OR DATE OF CONSTRUCTION, ABOUT THE
PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN DOING THE
COMPUTATION, OR ABOUT DECIDING WHICH INPUT ENERGY
IS INVESTED AND WHICH IS MERELY INPUT.

About the sunlight. The definition of invested
energy does work. (Input energy is invested,
rather than merely input, if it is at our disposal
for other purposes if we don't input it.) You've
just made an inexplicable error in applying the
definition. *Of course* you count the sunlight
falling on the PV as invested if the shade of the
PV denies some other productive use of the blocked
sunlight. That's what the definition says. Often
you will choose to count *instead* the energy
required to compensate for the lost production by
other means. Ie, the fossil fuel you have to burn
to heat your water.

But usually the sunlight that falls on PV panels
is not invested, because the panels shade only
structures which would not make the sunlight
productive: parking garages, insulated roofs,
barren ground.

David Delaney, Ottawa




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:15:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Net Energy (again)

Gene

I respectfully disagree with your suggestion
to change terminology (below).

The confusion is about which
energy input to an energy generating project is
invested and which is non-investment input energy.
People get confused about this if they have
not internalized the definition of investment. The
essence of that definition is choice between
alternative uses of energy *that are at our
disposal*. You can tell invested energy from other
input energy by asking whether you could use it
for something else if it were not being used to
build, or operate, or decommission the plant. If
you could, it's invested energy.

I submit that your suggestion to use the term
"energy input" instead of "energy invested" will
increase, not decrease, this confusion.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 07:13 PM 1/14/02 -0600, Gene Tyner wrote:
>The terms Investment and Return on Investment, which are ordinarily thought
>as financial terms, seem to generate confusion, and I would like to avoid
>them.
>
>Would it help to think about EROEI, Net Energy, Output/Input Ratio using the
>following definitions?
>
>Energy Input (Ei) = The estimated total quantity of energy depletion
>(Btu's, Joules, Kilowatt Hour, etc.) associated with
>(1) bringing an energy-transformation entity to an operational state,
>(2) operation and maintenance over entitie's lifecycle,
>(3) final decommissioning and disposal of all residuals.
>
>Energy Output (Eo) = Lifecycle output in Btu's, Joules, Kilowatt Hours, etc.
>
>Output/Input Ratio = Eo/Ei
>
>Net Energy = Eo - Ei
>
>Eo is relatively easy to approximate.
>
>Ei is another matter. If data were available, it would be far better to sum
>ALL the energy quantities involved. Data are not available; therefore, it
>is necessary to estimate Ei. If you try to add up only known energy inputs,
>you are leaving out a significant quantity of energy.
>
>It is not possible to be precise in calculating Ei; therefore, it must be
>estimated and indirectly. I think that the best that can be done are
>'order-of-magnitude' calculations. Therefore, net-energy calculations are
>order-of-magnitude calculations that, at least, can be used for "relative
>merit" comparisons, as suggested by Tom Robertson.
>
>I think that is also possible to
>(1) look back and approximate how we have been doing (backcast) and
>(2) using the same techniques, look forward and judge which
>energy-transformation entities have the best chance of viability by
>comparing to the "backcast."
>
>Importantly, Net Energy, Output/Input Ratio have two major components:
>(1) Lifecycle Analyses of One Energy Unit (power plant, wind mill, PV
>Installation, etc.) -- ordinarily called "Static Analysis" in the Net Energy
>Literature.
>(2) Large System Analysis, or Dynamic Analysis: Construction, Operation and
>Disposal of Large Systems over Time.
>
>It is important to understand that experienced analysts that I am familiar
>with, clearly understand that the "static" O/I ratio must quite large. It
>is not sufficient that this ratio be much larger than barely positive. I am
>sure that this will generate discussion.
>
>I think these comments are also related to a discussion being held under the
>thread "Heat", (e.g. Gregson and Ted Swarts.)
>
>Gene Tyner, Sr.



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:59:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] EROEI an explanation

At 11:30 PM 1/14/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:

>But doesn't EROEI tell us which energy source will give us the most
>energy? It can but we have to be careful with that word invested.
>What is the difference between energy invested and energy that is not
>invested?

The difference is precisely that energy invested
can be used for something else if you don't do the
project in which it is invested, and the energy
that is not invested cannot be used for something
else if you don't do the project.

>If we were to run a EROEI for building a dam in China,
>it would be very different than an EROEI in the United States.

True.

>A EROEI calculation for building the twin towers would be very
>different today than when it was built and it will be different in
>the year 2020.

No, because it would be zero in 2020, as it was
in 197? (Lots of energy in, no energy out.)

>A EROEI calculation for building a dam will be very
>different if the minimum wage is $3.00/ hr than if the minimum wage
>is $9.00/ hr. A EROEI calculation will be different of the workers
>live in five bedroom houses than if they live in mud huts.

True.

>This is why I say that EROEI will always have an
>economic and political component.

True. The political component is either unfair
taxes, or can be treated accurately as unfair
taxes, and dealt with in the way that taxes are
dealt with. The dependency on the economy is
large, but that is reality. If workers have a high
standard of living in a given culture, guess what,
it *does* take more energy to build the dam,
because every energy expenditure by a worker or
his family is energy invested according to the
definition.

These are not sources of inaccuracy, they are real
expenditures of energy that must be accounted part
of the investment.

>EROEI has a place in today's world but the more I
>think about it the less relavance it actually
>has.

This is just wrong Gregson. Have you tried
answering the question I asked in my response to
Jay Woods's post in the Re: Net energy (again...)
thread? (I reproduce it below.)

Shouldn't we be honest with ourselves, if EROEI
were so valuable then no one would have to
convince anyone to use it.

The sad thing is that eroei is interesting and
useful only in situations in which current energy
resources, which have huge eroei's have to be
replaced with other energy sources that have much
smaller eroeis. In other words in any situation in
which eroei's are useful, most eroeis are
threateningly unpleasant truths. Since when have
unpleasant truth's recommended themselves easily
to most? If they did, this group would be
unnecessary.

David Delaney, Ottawa

>At 09:48 AM 1/13/02 -0500, Jay Woods wrote:
>
> >It is the system definition not the math that makes EROEI unusable.
>
>Here's the thing. Sometime this century available
>energy will be declining at a fairly rapid rate.
>Your mission, if you accept it, is to have a
>recommendation ready to give to decision makers as
>to what energy investments will best slow down the
>rate of decline. You are the energy source guru--
>someone else has the job of making recommendations
>about efficiency and conservation. You will fail
>in your mission and kill people--probably a lot of
>people--if your trusted recommendation is for an
>energy technology that requires more energy input
>per unit of energy output than another
>alternative, or which actually requires more
>energy as investment than it produces. What are
>you going to do? No matter how you twist and turn,
>that *is* the only possible definition of a less
>than best recommendation. You may argue that the
>decision makers and the human race may have to
>settle for a satisficing recommendation--one that
>produces positive results but not necessarily the
>best. Fair enough. This changes the criterion for
>your recommendation. The recommended technology
>must return more energy than it requires as
>investment, and return it quickly enough so that
>the situation does not get too bad before your
>recommended technology starts to pay net energy.
>No matter what other considerations may be
>important to your success or failure, you fail and
>people die unnecessarily unless your recommended
>technology meets these simple requirements on
>energy investments and energy outputs. What are
>you going to do to prepare your recommendation?
>
>David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:43:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)

At 10:28 AM 1/14/02 -0800, Ted Swarts wrote:

>I think that both you <Gregson Vaux> and David are
>mincing words; with you stuck on the word
>'invested' and with David stuck on the word 'in'.

Uh, it's the other way around, I think, maybe....

Anyway, the thing to remember is that the energy
invested is 1) only part of the input energy, 2)
it's the part that you would be able to use for
something else if you did not invest it.

David Delaney, Ottawa






Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:40:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Heat

Perry

Neat idea.

I presume your "detuning" of the solar tracker is to
arrange a hinged shade flap on the tracker
carriage with a linkage that operates to flop it
over suddenly from one side to the other so that
each of the two tracker pistons remains in full
sun until it suddenly enters full shade, and vice
versa.

By the way, I think it was Steve Baer who invented
the freon solar tracker twenty or thirty
years ago. He'd probably be delighted to hear
about this use of it. He invented a lot of solar
gadgets.

Any suggestions for a lower tech working fluid
than freon? A depressurized water/water vapor mixture?

I don't think you can buy freon in Canada
anymore.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 09:08 AM 1/14/02 -0700, Perry Arnett wrote:
>Kermit -
>
> to put this to bed, consider this :
>
>take a freon charged solar tracker
>
>run the freon lines to a double acting hydraulic cylinder connected to either a linear air motor or a rotary air motor
>
>purposefully 'de-tune' the tracker shades so that rather than smoothly tracking the sun across the sky (as is the normal case),
>it oscillates in a repetetitive, controlled, but back-and-forth manner; these oscillations can be large or small as one might
>find works the best for the purpose
>
>i.e. purposefully cause the tracker to 'hunt' for the sun rather than lock on and follow smoothly
>
>the action of 'hunting' will cause the tracker to generate 'surplus' mechanical motion, motion normally unwanted in solar
>trackers, but in THIS specific case, purposefully engineered to satify Kermits request, this motion is desired.
>
>how 'efficient'? quite, once constructed
>
>how powerful? determined only by the size of the freon reservoirs, the operating pressure, the size of the hydraulic cylinders
>and the rotary air motor
>
>how long lasting? VERY, once built
>
>operating cost? VERY low
>
>how useful? you imagine all the things you can do with a source of VERY low cost motion generated from a "low temp heat
>source"...
>
>how costly ? I can do a demo model for ~$2500
>
>now - any takers?



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:56:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)

Oops. Blush. Stammer.

I should have systematically inverted all of the ratios
in the following post on the subject Re: Net energy (again...)

David Delaney, Ottawa

I wrote

>At 05:10 AM 1/14/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:
>
>>It seems that some people here do not understand
>>that EROEI in not a simple matter of Energy in /
>>Energy Out. If you use this definition, you will
>>ALWAYS have an energy loss due to the second law
>>of thermodynamics.
>
>This is at least the sixth time in the last few
>months that you have sent a post repeating this
>confusing statement. I don't know whether you
>really think the definition of EROEI makes the
>mistake you are pointing out or not. Very few
>people, especially here, make this mistake. If I
>had not sent a post yesterday correcting a post
>that had made this mistake, I would have said that
>no one makes this mistake. In the year or two that
>I have been on this list, I have seen only the one
>post other than your six or so that makes this
>mistake.
>
>One more time:
>
>EROEI is *not* Energy In / Energy Out
>
>EROEI *is* Energy INVESTED / Energy Out.
>
>Invested energy is the energy we have within our
>power to dispose of if we do not put it into the
>process in which it is invested. In a project to
>produce primary energy, there is always some input
>energy that is not invested energy. (In a worthwhile
>primary energy project, the non-invested input
>energy is substantially greater than the invested
>input energy.)
>
>It would perhaps be useful and less confusing
>if you refrained from sending this message unless
>you spot an actual instance of this error.
>
>David Delaney, Ottawa
>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:00:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)

At 05:10 AM 1/14/02 +0000, Gregson Vaux wrote:

>It seems that some people here do not understand
>that EROEI in not a simple matter of Energy in /
>Energy Out. If you use this definition, you will
>ALWAYS have an energy loss due to the second law
>of thermodynamics.

This is at least the sixth time in the last few
months that you have sent a post repeating this
confusing statement. I don't know whether you
really think the definition of EROEI makes the
mistake you are pointing out or not. Very few
people, especially here, make this mistake. If I
had not sent a post yesterday correcting a post
that had made this mistake, I would have said that
no one makes this mistake. In the year or two that
I have been on this list, I have seen only the one
post other than your six or so that makes this
mistake.

One more time:

EROEI is *not* Energy In / Energy Out

EROEI *is* Energy INVESTED / Energy Out.

Invested energy is the energy we have within our
power to dispose of if we do not put it into the
process in which it is invested. In a project to
produce primary energy, there is always some input
energy that is not invested energy. (In a worthwhile
primary energy project, the non-invested input
energy is substantially greater than the invested
input energy.)

It would perhaps be useful and less confusing
if you refrained from sending this message unless
you spot an actual instance of this error.

David Delaney, Ottawa





Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:14:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)

At 09:48 AM 1/13/02 -0500, Jay Woods wrote:

>It is the system definition not the math that makes EROEI unusable.

Here's the thing. Sometime this century available
energy will be declining at a fairly rapid rate.
Your mission, if you accept it, is to have a
recommendation ready to give to decision makers as
to what energy investments will best slow down the
rate of decline. You are the energy source guru--
someone else has the job of making recommendations
about efficiency and conservation. You will fail
in your mission and kill people--probably a lot of
people--if your trusted recommendation is for an
energy technology that requires more energy input
per unit of energy output than another
alternative, or which actually requires more
energy as investment than it produces. What are
you going to do? No matter how you twist and turn,
that *is* the only possible definition of a less
than best recommendation. You may argue that the
decision makers and the human race may have to
settle for a satisficing recommendation--one that
produces positive results but not necessarily the
best. Fair enough. This changes the criterion for
your recommendation. The recommended technology
must return more energy than it requires as
investment, and return it quickly enough so that
the situation does not get too bad before your
recommended technology starts to pay net energy.
No matter what other considerations may be
important to your success or failure, you fail and
people die unnecessarily unless your recommended
technology meets these simple requirements on
energy investments and energy outputs. What are
you going to do to prepare your recommendation?

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:58:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Net energy (again...)

At 02:24 PM 1/13/02 +0000, Michael Dewolf wrote:

>Except when it comes to embedded energy. The chain of embedded
>energy will never stop, leaving large errors in many analysees (sp?).

More horseshit.

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

I would not be that direct, but do want to share an observation. Discussion on what can be called the "net energy" issue breaks down into two camps: 1) Those who see such analysis as getting in the way of what they believe or want to do, and 2) those who are trying to figure out what is going to work best under a range of circumstances.

The bottom line for example, hydrogen and ethanol as energy resource/technologies that would compete against the primary energies we can expect to have for a long time, even with peaking, are non issues. They are not energetically competitive and thus, once the subsidies are cleared, are not economically, (and eventually politically) viable.

Worse than this is that the discussion continues at such a level of confusion and uncertainty, given that it is well past the time we should start serious consideration of what the Energy/Money Transition will be and what we can practically do about it.

Even worse is that it is very possible that improved analysis of the energy/economic systems we live in will show that low concentration resources like hydrogen and ethanol, for example, could very well have a role to play, but their benefits are lost in the confusions caused by teir advocates.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:52:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Net energy (again... 2)

Reply to Denis Frith's post:

You argue that excluding the energy of wind and
sunlight from the energy invested in exploiting
wind energy and solar energy corrupts the
computation of eroei. I believe you need to take
more account of *why* we compute eroei, and how
this purpose should affect the definition of
energy investment. I argue below that input energy
from wind and solar *should* be excluded from the
energy investment required to exploit wind energy
and solar energy.

The main reason, perhaps the only interesting
reason, to define or compute eroei is to choose
between investments in energy sources to replace
disappearing fossil fuels as primary energy sources.

Definition: The energy invested
in an energy source is the energy denied to the
production of other services and goods by the
creation, operation, maintenance, and
decommissioning, of the energy source.

Solar energy is denied to the production of other
services and goods by falling on a PV panel only
if that solar energy would serve some other
productive use if the PV panel did not exist. If
the solar energy *would* serve some other
productive use in the absence of the PV panel,
then the energy required to compensate for the
loss of that production must be accounted as part
of the energy investment in PV as an energy
source, but not otherwise. This compensating
energy may be more or less than the energy
that falls on the PV panel.

Even with this definition of energy investment, we
have to keep in mind that the goal is to choose
between alternative courses of action, not to
polish concepts.

If the shade created by the PV panel substantially
reduces services from the environment, to
agriculture for example, or in maintaining
biodiversity, then we *may* have to take detailed
account of these effects. But a fairly cursory
analysis may indicate that, for the alternatives
in question, such effects are much less than the
environmentally damaging effects of the fossil
fuel use we want to replace. For example, PV
panels or wind turbines may be placed in a desert.
In such cases, the reduction in environmental
service will not affect our choice of action, and
may be ignored in the computation of eroei.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 12:29 AM 1/14/02 +1100, Denis Frith wrote:
>Tom
> I will raise this one again because I believe there is some
>confusion here, probably because of the terminology used. It is
>important to get this matter in perspective. You stated
>
> --- Tom Robertson <t1r@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> > Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) is defined by
> > determining the physical ratio of energy (a thermodynamic
> > quantity) required/invested to produce a specific quantity of
> > energy.
> >
> An energy process transforms internally to the system the form of
>energy input from the source to the form of energy required as
>output. Various forms of external energy have to be used to set up
>and operate the process.
> I will use the coal underground as the input for an example. This
>example uses some of nature's stored (chemical) energy as the source.
>Let us denote that input energy by I. The output is electrical energy
>delivered to a factory. Denoted by O. The chemical energy in the coal
>does useful work by being burnt to generate steam which drives
>turbines driving generators to produce the electricity transmitted
>down the lines to the factory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells
>us that the amount of energy provided in the coal used will be much
>greater than the electrical energy delivered. The difference is
>manifest as unavailable heat energy (H) dissipated to the
>surroundings. That is I=O+H so O<I
> Consider also an example where a renewable source of energy is
>used to produce the electrical energy. A wind farm will do. Again the
>energy (mechanical kinetic) input will greatly exceed the electrical
>energy output. O<I again
> In each example, an amount of external energy (E) is required to
>be invested in setting up and operating the system. For clarity
>later, let ES denote external energy from store and ER denote
>external energy from renewable sources. E=ES+ER
> In my understanding, EROEI refers to O and E but not I. I in both
>examples is regarded as free. This is very misleading. In fact, it is
>ironical that EROEI is being used by energy people when it
>perpetuates the error that humanity can use nature's stores without
>cost, to the future.
> I would argue that the coal-fired power station and associated
>mine, transmission lines etc represent a draw down of natural energy
>capital of I+ES (that part of E that also stems from natural capital
>whether it be oil for the machinery or whatever). On the other hand,
>the wind farm and associated equipment uses only ES from stored
>energy. The I (wind) represents free energy and need not be included
>in the energy accounting. Net energy comparisons made on this site
>have generally been about the relation between E and O. It leads to
>the (erroneous) conclusion that fossil fuel energy systems are better
>than those based on renewables because E<<O while E might be greater
>tah O on a winf farm.
> Georgescu-Roegen would turn in his grave if he heard this
>argument EROEI while oil company executives are applauding.
>
>Denis Frith
>Melbourne



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 08:08:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Net energy (again... 2)

At 02:58 PM 1/12/02 -0800, Mike Morin wrote:
>However, EROEI is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify.

Horseshit.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:55:46 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Heat

At 10:55 AM 1/12/02 -0500, Kermit Schlansker wrote:

>The question is, do you think that cheap serial
>axial turbines could be made from aluminum or
>plastic for work at these low temperatures? Could
>they have efficiencies as high as 90%? Would
>serial radial turbines be efficient? Are piston
>expanders the most efficient way of using heat at
>300 F or lower? What is the cheapest and most
>efficient way of using low temperature heat? Denis
>Frith said that he had worked on turbines.
>Automobile exhaust systems, gasification systems,
>and furnaces are examples of places where low
>temperature heat is being wasted. The question
>also applies to solar energy and manufacturing
>waste heat.

An engine transforming heat to work (a heat
engine) operates between a high temperature heat
source and a low temperature heat sink.

To attain the *maximum theoretical efficiency* of 90%,
an ideal heat engine for which the high temperature heat
source is at 300F (760 Rankine) must have a low
temperature heat sink at 76R=-384F. Far too cold
to be practical. The boiling point of liquid
nitrogen is approximately 138R=-322F.

For a more reasonable Tl, of say, 80F, the maximum
theoretical efficiency of an engine for which
Th=300F is .3.

The maximum theoretical efficiency = Carnot
efficiency = (Th-Tl)/Th, where Th and Tl are
absolute (Rankine or Kelvin) temperatures.

To get an idea of achievable efficiencies,
consider that nuclear and coal plants often
operate between 400C and approximately 100C
(atmospheric cooling tower), achieving an actual
efficiency of 33%, whereas the maximum theoretical
efficiency for those temperatures is 44%. Not
only does maximum theoretical efficiency decline
with declining difference between Th and Tl, it
becomes practically more difficult and expensive
for mechanical engines to approach the theoretical
maximum. As an engine gets smaller and cheaper,
the capital cost of an additional efficiency
point becomes harder to justify.

Conversion of heat to work is a very mature
engineering technology. Since the cost of
electrical generation is entirely dominated by the
cost of capital and the cost of fuel, much effort
has gone into optimizing the efficiency of large heat
engines.

David Delaney, Ottawa

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Sometime this list has some really good stuff!

Thanks, David.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~




Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:54:25 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] David Fleming -- The great oil denial

David Fleming has submitted a paper entitled "The great oil denial" to the UK Energy Review.

This is a slight rework of his article "After oil", Prospect Magazine, November 2000.

<http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2001/energy/submissions/Fleming.pdf>

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:07:20 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Market fundamentalists deny the environment

Market fundamentalists consistently deny
environmental degradation and resource
limitations. These problems require "collectivist"
solutions in the form of government regulation of business
operations, markets, and population. Since government
"interference" is anathema to market
fundamentalists, they can and do avoid cognitive
dissonance by denying that such problems exist.

One of Canada's two national newspapers, the
National Post, supports market fundamentalism as a
matter of apparently consistent editorial policy.

Read the editorial below, and weep.

David Delaney, Ottawa

Start of article:

January 8, 2002

NAFTA's official bioscare agency

Terence Corcoran, National Post

One of the annoying creations of the NAFTA trade
pact is the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC), a $9-million operation based on
Montreal. Funded by the three North American
governments, the CEC serves no known purpose
except to periodically produce globules of green
propaganda in which the worst of conventional
environmental misinformation gets trotted out as
official dogma. Yesterday, the CEC issued The
North American Mosaic: A State of the Environment
Report, possibly the worst CEC production in its
five years of existence.

Thanks to some clever post-New Year media release
tricks, including nation-wide organized leaks, the
report received splashy advance coverage across
the country yesterday. Wildlife in Crisis, NAFTA
Study Says. Vast Floods, 235 Species in Peril.
These and other disasters supposedly loom as
populations, trade and growth expand. The CEC, the
product of a free trade agreement, more or less
declares that free trade and globalization are
agents of human destruction of nature: "Global
trade can also lead to global access to resources,
and this can place pressures on ecosystems."

Described as NAFTA's environmental watchdog, the
commission is actually a lapdog of green activism.
Just about every myth and junk science fantasy
gets a mention in the report, along with every
article in the catechism of sustainable
development and the emerging planning scam,
ecosystem management.

The overall theme, picked up from the sustainable
development literature, is that humans are a
threat to life and despoilers of "the Earth's
assets." "The Earth's assets can be viewed as a
bank account," it says, adopting a totally
inappropriate analogy. "By 'spending' natural
capital without replenishing it, or by damaging
processes and living systems that cannot be fixed
by technology, we are living off our capital
rather than the interest." To fix this false
problem, the report endorses a "new environmental
economics" that will measure a new "ecological
Gross Domestic Product" that would incorporate
"natural capital" and its consumption.

Macroeconomics, with its purported capacity to
measure and manipulate GDP growth, is a planning
fiasco and a bit of a fraud as it exists; blending
in measures of natural capital and consumption
would create a Keynesian horror. It would serve no
purpose except to give green planners and state
bureaucrats more gunpowder to threaten the rest of
us into environmental submission. Since all human
activity is essentially a curse on nature, no
corner of human activity would be left untouched
by enviroplanners.

The CEC report is a digest of all the scares
recorded in the last decade. Automobile use causes
smog, which is creating a serious urban health
problem, part of the evidence being Ontario
studies that claim 1,800 people die prematurely
from smog in the province every year. The number,
the product of junk science, has no real-world
validity. When Toronto health officials tried to
find the premature deaths earlier this year, they
ran into statistical reality. Not only could the
city find no deaths, it found more lives: on smog
days, fewer people died.

The NAFTA report has no time for any science or
views that might interfere with its major themes.
The big headline grabber was the "looming threats"
to species. "A significant proportion of the plant
and animal species of North America is
threatened." The actual number was 235. Even
assuming that figure to be accurate, which it is
not, the report is merely feeding off the
10-year-old species bioscare fabricated by
biocrank Paul Erlich and others -- a scare Danish
scientist Byorn Lomborg blew up last year in The
Skeptical Environmentalist.

As Mr. Lomborg reports, 25 species have been dying
off every year since the year 1600. Since there
are at minimum 1.6-million known living species in
the world today, with some estimates running to
10-million and up to 80-million, the annual
species kill rate is miniscule. So the looming
threat of 235 species disappearing hardly ranks as
a "significant proportion" of any total. In any
case, the extinctions -- as Mr. Lomborg's research
suggests -- are unlikely to occur.

Wherever the NAFTA commission turns, it manages to
distort its subject. Solar and wind power are
described as "virtually limitless," a generous
exaggeration since in most regions they're not
available at all for half the time due to lack of
sun and wind. The report's authors cannot bring
themselves to admit that these energy sources are
uneconomic and currently make no sense. They just
suffer from "underlying pressures that create
barriers" to commercialization. These barriers
include the "high cost of capital, poorly
developed infrastructure and a disadvantageous
energy pricing regime." Despite these strikes
against it, renewable energy is hailed as the
trend of the future.

Global warming gets the usual treatment. It's
here, it's real and it's going to kill us. Floods,
malaria, rising sea levels, crop failures, wild
weather and -- if the northern peat bogs get soggy
-- massive releases of smelly methane. Cozumel
would disappear under water. The effect on the
tides in places like the Bay of Fundy "would be
unimaginable."

Oh, it is all so tedious, these ritual productions
by government-sponsored agencies. To ward off the
CEC and other agencies of mass intellectual
destruction, rush out today to pick up a copy of
The Skeptical Environmentalist. It'll clear your
mind.

End of article.



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:48:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Other recent examples of

At 06:27 AM 1/6/02 +0000, Steven Zoraster wrote:
>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney <ddelaney@s...> wrote:
> > At 02:57 PM 1/5/02 +0000, Steven Zoraster wrote:
> >
> > <snip long list of reversals of scientific consensus>
> >
> > >My point? Just because something is regarded as
> > >scientific consensus doesn't prove it is true.
> >
>[cut]
> >
> > The culture of science is spectacularly successful
> > in establishing truths about the physical world.
> >
>
>No. the culture of science is successful when establishing testable
>hypothesis about how the physical world works, or when publishing
>observational results, which might lead someone else to form an
>hypothesis that can be tested. Any existing "real" scientific theory
>can be tested and rejected if the tests turn up negative results.
>Climate change is an example of observational science. To my
>knowledge no one has devised a way to test of the hypothesis that
>human beings are having almost no impact on global climate patterns.

First: Hey, did I say that negation of the hypothesis you state is a truth? I did not.
You pick on my use of the word truth and write an essay about epistemology. I refuse to remove the word "truth" from the dictionary, or to consider its only meaning as equivalent to "tautological". I feel no need to apologize when I say that the first and second laws of thermodynamics are true. I do not accept that when I say this I am asserting that our understanding of them will never change. I stand by the paragraph you criticize. It is a reasonable and true statement.


> > The function of peer reviews and a hierarchy of
> > funding authority for research is precisely to
> > establish such consensus--to prevent equal time
> > being given to obsessive nuts and those whose
> > opinions about a matter are more informed by
> > profit and politics than by truth.
> >
>
>If you looked at the most prestigious British scientific journal
>_Nature_ over the last umpteen years, your would have read hundreds
>of letters and articles about biases, frauds, and other mistakes in
>the peer review process for both scientific papers and in the
>hierarchy of funding authority for research by government and private
>scientific organizations.

Of course. As Churchill said of democracy, its the worst system we have except for all the others.


>You would also have seen occasional articles and letters discussing
>the difficulty getting equal time for publication or funding of
>unusual ideas by good scientists.
>
> >
> > When the consensus is wrong, only professional
> > scientists deeply involved in the relevant field
> > 1) have any hope of being rationally convinced of
> > the error, 2) have any reasonable hope of
> > overturning it. Use of the techniques of public
> > relations against a scientific consensus
> > disqualifies critics of the consensus. This is as
> > it should be. Appeals to non-scientists to
> > sidestep peer review and scientific consensus
> > building should be universally recognized as
> > damaging to the only social process that made
> > science so spectacularly successful at
> > establishing truth about the world.
> >
>
>I agree that use of techniques of public relations in science is
>wrong. Again, if you looked at _Nature_, or the American scientific
>journal _Science_, you would find that this is a continuing
>discussion topic. And again, science doesn't establish "truth". At
>best it establishes well-accepted hypothesis that are currently
>impossible to disprove. (Only God establishes truth. So far, he or
>she hasn't revealed it to me. I get the impression that some people
>on this list believe that he or she has revealed it to them.)
>
> >
> > Because scientific consensus is our highest human
> > court of truth about the physical world, public
> > policy should submit to scientific consensus
> > whenever truth about the physical world is crucial
> > to the correctness of the policy. This is
> > especially so when the result of ignoring the
> > consensus might be catastrophic.
> >
>
>Not without considering the strength of that consensus, usually
>presented in the form of probabilities derived from rigorous
>statistical testing methods. And not without considering the economic
>and social costs. Case in point: Science has "proven" that smoking
>leads to increased chance of lung cancer. What government and society
>should do about that "truth" is entirely another question.
>
>And what should be done appears to change over time, space, and
>social organization: "The Nazi doctors fought their war against
>cancer on many fronts, battling environmental and workplace hazards
>(restrictions on the use of asbestos) and recommending food standards
>(bans on carcinogenic pesticides and food dyes) and early detection
>("men were advised to get their colons checked as often as they would
>check the engines of their cars..."). Armed with the world's most
>sophisticated tobacco-disease epidemiology--they were the first to
>link smoking to lung cancer definitively--Nazi doctors were
>especially passionate about the hazards of tobacco." From an
>Amazon.com review of _The Nazi War on Cancer_, 2000, ISBN:
>0691070512.
>
>Steven Zoraster
>
>P.S. On the next go around on this subject, I will post links to
>difficulties put in the way of the acceptance of plate tectonics,
>which delayed serious scientific research in that field for 30 years.
>And then I will post something about the recent collapse of
>the "Clovis First" scientific consensus about the original peopling
>of America from Asia. :-)
>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:59:19 -0500
Subject: RE: [energyresources] Future energy resources

At 12:11 PM 1/6/02 +1000, Karey Harrison wrote:

>I will give you a quote showing that Gould does in
>fact reject this hierarchical nature of
>evolution: "Darwin clearly understood that the basic
>mechanics of natural selection implied no
>statement about progress, for the theory only
>speaks of local adaptation to changing
>environments.' (S J Gould Eight Little Piggies,
>1993, p303


There's much better than a quote here and there.
SJ Gould wrote a whole book specifically to analyse
and reject the idea that evolution tended to any
end. See "Full House: The Spread of Excellence
from Plato to Darwin."

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 19:59:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Other recent examples of "scientific

At 02:57 PM 1/5/02 +0000, Steven Zoraster wrote:

<snip long list of reversals of scientific consensus>

>My point? Just because something is regarded as
>scientific consensus doesn't prove it is true.

Unless you are a professional scientist in the
field in question, i.e. earning your living as
one, your bet against scientific consensus has
about the same chance of being right as your
chance of winning the lottery.

The culture of science is spectacularly successful
in establishing truths about the physical world.

The function of peer reviews and a hierarchy of
funding authority for research is precisely to
establish such consensus--to prevent equal time
being given to obsessive nuts and those whose
opinions about a matter are more informed by
profit and politics than by truth.

When the consensus is wrong, only professional
scientists deeply involved in the relevant field
1) have any hope of being rationally convinced of
the error, 2) have any reasonable hope of
overturning it. Use of the techniques of public
relations against a scientific consensus
disqualifies critics of the consensus. This is as
it should be. Appeals to non-scientists to
sidestep peer review and scientific consensus
building should be universally recognized as
damaging to the only social process that made
science so spectacularly successful at
establishing truth about the world.

Because scientific consensus is our highest human
court of truth about the physical world, public
policy should submit to scientific consensus
whenever truth about the physical world is crucial
to the correctness of the policy. This is
especially so when the result of ignoring the
consensus might be catastrophic.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 01:42:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re:The Law of Entropy

At 09:38 PM 1/3/02 -0800, Matt Adams wrote:

>It is a trade off: a local decrease of entropy
>with an overall/later increase of entropy.

There is never a tradeoff of future entropy
increase for immediate entropy decrease.

Every local decrease of the entropy of matter is
accompanied by an instantaneously simultaneous
greater increase of entropy nearby.

If free energy enters a system (e.g. work, light,
or any form of energy that is more concentrated
than is typical of the interior of the system),
the entropy of the system decreases at the instant
the system receives the free energy across its
boundary. But the instant that the free energy is
used in the system for anything at all, (i.e.
modified in any way at all) the entropy of the
system increases again. If the free energy is used
for something as grossly irreversible as smelting
rust into iron within the system, this immediate
increase in entropy of the system is large
compared to the decrease in the entropy of the
iron substance.

If the free energy used to smelt the iron
originates in the system containing the rust and
the resulting iron, the total entropy of the
system increases at every instant during which the
entropy of the iron component of the system is
decreasing, and increases by a much greater amount.

Free energy (Gibbs term for energy capable of
doing work--also called exergy) must be degraded
in large chunks within a system in order to make
small decreases in the entropy of matter within
the system. The central theme of energyresources
is that we are rapidly degrading our fossil fuel
free energy, and don't know where we are to get
comparable quantities in the future.

The free energy of fossil fuels is a tiny relic of
the enormously greater amount of free energy of
the eons of sunlight necessary for the creation of
fossil fuels.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:15:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Alaskan Oil Production

What is the attribution of this?
A URL would be preferable to an attachment in this case, to provide context.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 01:41 PM 1/4/02 -0800, Roger Blanchard wrote:
> Alaska Crude Oil Production.htm <attachement>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: mwgreg140@aol.com,energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:44:36 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Even Lomborg's Critics Agree With Him On

Marvin

Lovely line of questions. So simple. So reasonable.
I hope you'll let us see the reply, if any.

David Delaney, Ottawa


At 04:33 AM 12/29/01 -0500, Marvin wrote:
>In a message dated 12/27/01 8:10:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, michael.lynch@dri-wefa.com writes:
>
>
>>
>>Happy holidays, Marvin!
>>I'm afraid I disagree with a lot of what is said below. I don't think very many geologists think we're 'running out' in a meaningful way (any more than we are running out of coal, that is). Everyone knows that supply is finite, but most think it is very large, so technically when you use it, there is less remaining, but certainly that doesn't mean there is any impending difficulty. The term 'running out' is often used as a short-hand to mean scarcity, but that is a different matter.
>>
>>Most of the world is nowhere near as drilled as the US, even if you adjust for the areas that are not prospective for oil. And the evidence does not support the scarcity hypothesis. Discoveries are going up, supply is rising, and OPEC is being forced, again and again, to cut production to avoid a complete price collapse (partly due to recession, of course).
>>
>>My two cents worth.
>>Mike
>
>Dear Dr. Lynch:
> I appreciate hearing from you and the best of new years to you, too.
> I was quite sure that you wouldn't agree with my interpretation of the future almost upon us, but I do appreciate hearing from you and you making your objection known. I hope you are aware, before we begin, that you are dealing with an English Major and this being true, you are up to your ears in serious, serious trouble. This realization has frightened off many other less serious adversaries but knowing you and your remarkable courage, I'm sure you won't be deterred.
> First of all, when we speak about oil, meaning when I speak about oil, we're talking about the easy kind. The kind of oil that only requires that a drill be driven into the ground (or with recent advances, into the ocean shelf floor) and by internal pressure, or pumping, or water or gas injection, etc., nice fluid oil is recovered. I make this distinction simply so there will be no misunderstanding about what we are discussing.
> In your short note, you remarked that "Most of the world is nowhere near as drilled as the US" and that is where I would like to start.
> M. King Hubbert set the recoverable oil (see above) in the U.S. as being around 200 billion barrels, Colin Campbell upped the number to 210 Gb, and Kenneth Deffeyes, working some magic with Gaussian curves, came up with 220 Gb. All of this seems quite sensible to me. I noted that the authors of Beyond Oil, working over the same material came up with 214 Gb which has always seemed about right to me. What enters in is that there is a small amount of oil being extracted in the deep offshore shelf of the US which most likely was not figured in before as recoverable. It most likely seemed to lie forever beyond our technical grasp to bring up.
> Now, I bring up to this 210Gb to 220Gb figure as a figure that should be entirely plausible to you and the whole civilized world. The US is a mature oil province to say the least and it has been poked and prodded and lanced all over the place, and examined by x-ray and ultrasound and prayed over and discussed in committees and out of committee and wagered upon and debated, and in my opinion, there is a consensus that 210Gb to 220Gb is just about right. It might even be that you yourself would concede that somewhere in the neighborhood of 210Gb to 220Gb is a pretty good guess and you wouldn't argue the point but would rather get on to other business.
> I belabor all this because if it is possible to size up and report on the U.S.'s potential, its original oil endowment, then with today's very sophisticated technology, its also quite likely that, say, Mexico's or Canada's potential, their original endowment, could be served up on a platter to you, too. And, I suspect that Australia's potential could be reasoned out, too, as well as, say, India's or Pakistan's, and so on. The point I'm pursuing is that if the U.S.'s potential can be known to the point of saying, "That's about right," then it would follow that each nation in the world could be sized up to the same extent and when all of them were added up, you, gentle reader, would have the potential of the whole world at your finger tips and locked away in the deep recesses of your mind. Once you had a pretty good idea of that potential, you could take half of it and come up with WHEN, depending upon the rate of consumption, the peak in world oil production worldwide would occur.
> That's point number one. Point number two has again to do with the United States. If the amount of domestic oil we are bringing up out of the ground to meet our own demand has been falling in almost a straight line since our peak year of 1970, then I would submit that it is quite likely that that the world as a whole must follow the same pattern. We are at a point whereby we must import 60 percent of the oil we consume. We are forced to do that because we can no longer find or extract the domestic oil we need to provide us 100 percent of our demand. This, of incidental note, puts us in a perilous position because we are dependent on oil from distant nations that might have their supply of oil to us interrupted by terrorism or cut off for one reason or another. I bring all of this up simply to point out that our need (the U.S.'s need) to buy oil means that we are running out of oil -- the nice fluid stuff brought up by drilling and/or enhanced recovery. We can't fill all of our demand from domestic supplies. If we can run out of oil, then why isn't it logical that the world as a whole can peak in production and begin to run out of oil? I am again making an analogy of U.S. supply to world supply. If the U.S.'s oil production can peak and then begin to decline in a regular straight-line pattern, the isn't it possible that the world's production can also peak and begin to decline in a straight-line pattern?
> A third point has to do with time and consumption. There must be a limit to the amount of oil the world contains and a corollary: there must be a limit to the time needed to use up that oil. If one posits that the world will not run out of oil for a long, long time, then it must follow that there is a heck of a lot of oil out there. Dig out any projection of oil consumption and the graph you're examining goes up at an extravagant, breathtaking angle. I would submit that, say, going 20 years down the road, there just isn't that much oil in the world -- unless we are talking about an amount that would fill up the Great Lakes, the Atlantic Ocean, or some absurd amount approaching that quantity. Remember, too, that we're talking about reaching the midpoint of the amount of oil remaining so we are talking about doubling things: when we do finally reach the peak in oil production, that peak will only represent the halfway mark of the amount of oil the world contains.
> In all of this, I have made things quite easy for you. I have laid things out so you may address what I've said by answering just a few simple questions:
> Do you think the ultimate amount of oil the U.S. contains may be estimated, say, give or take 10 percent?
> Do you think the ultimate amount of oil Canada contains may be estimated, say, give or take 10 percent?
> Do you think the ultimate amount of oil Chile contains may be estimated, say, give or take 10 percent?
> Do you think the ultimate amount of oil Greenland contains may be estimated, say, give or take 10 percent?
> Do you think the ultimate amount of oil Australia contains may be estimated, say, give or take 10 percent?
> Do you think the ultimate amount of oil the world contains may be estimated, say, give or take 30 percent?
> (In each case, I'm talking about the original definition of easy-flowing, "nice" oil.)
>
>Part Two:
>
> Do you think that it is possible that the supply of world oil will fail to meet demand in the near future? I'm talking about a continued, always increasing demand for oil that is seen in USGS charts.
> Do you believe that the world might contain 6,000Gb or even as much as 8,000Gb, or possibly even as much as 12,000Gb of "nice" oil that might be used to maintain world supply? would 30,000Gb be too high? 40,000Gb?
> Do you think that the U.S. might contain double the amount of oil which has already been extracted from it?
>
>Part Three
>
> Do you believe that no die-off of the greater part of humanity will occur in the foreseeable future -- say 50 years?
>
>Part Four
>
> Do you believe that Capitalism like religion, will always rule Mankind's lives and actions?
>
>Part Five
>
> Do you think that if I continue to spend money at the same rate and in the same reckless manner, that I will be completely broke long before next Christmas?
> Marvin (Seattle)
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 20:05:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Impact of technology

At 10:10 PM 1/1/02 +1100, Denis Frith wrote:
>During my career as an aeronautical scientist, I watched and took
>part in the development of the gas turbine engine from the small,
>radial compressor machine of the 50's to today's high-bypass ratio,
>fan engine. One of the major intentions in these developments was
>improvement of the sfc (specific fuel consumtion). This was so
>successful that it made the wide-body, long-range airliner possible.
>It is ironical that the objective of reducing fuel consumption led to
>a very large increase in aviation fuel usage, with a corresponding
>increase in the draw down of vital global capital, oil.

The text below is taken from "Capitalism’s
Environmental Crisis— Is Technology the Answer?"
by John Bellamy Foster
<http://www.monthlyreview.org/1200jbf.htm>
(This article was written for presentation at the
Hitotsubashi Symposium, “The Twentieth Century:
Dreams and Realities,” Hitotsubashi University,
Tokyo, December 2-3, 2000.)

Start of excerpt:

But there is one aspect of Jevons’ argument that
has attracted the admiration of ecological
economists. Chapter Seven of The Coal Question was
entitled “Of the Economy of Fuel.” Here he argued
that increased efficiency in using a natural
resource, such as coal, only resulted in increased
demand for that resource, not a reduction in
demand. This was because such improvement in
efficiency led to a rising scale of production.

"It is wholly a confusion of ideas," Jevons wrote,
"to suppose that the economic use of fuel is
equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very
contrary is the truth. As a rule, the new modes of
economy will lead to an increase of consumption
according to a principle recognized in many
parallel instances.... The same principles apply,
with even greater force and distinctiveness to the
use of such a general agent as coal. It is the
very economy of its use which leads to its
extensive consumption.... Nor is it difficult to
see how this paradox arises.... If the quantity of
coal used in a blast-furnace, for instance, be
diminished in comparison with the yield, the
profits of the trade will increase, new capital
will be attracted, the price of pig-iron will
fall, but the demand for it increase; and
eventually the greater number of furnaces will
more than make up for the diminished consumption
of each. And if such is not always the result
within a single branch, it must be remembered that
the progress of any branch of manufacture excites
a new activity in most other branches and leads
indirectly, if not directly, to increased inroads
upon our seams of coal.... Civilization, says
Baron Liebig, is the economy of power, and our
power is coal. It is the very economy of the use
of coal that makes our industry what it is; and
the more we render it efficient and economical,
the more will our industry thrive, and our works
of civilization grow." (140-142)

Jevons went on to argue in detail that the whole
history of the steam engine was a history of
successive economies in its use—and each time
this led to further increases in the scale of
production and the demand for coal. “Every such
improvement of the engine,” he observed, “when
effected, does but accelerate anew the consumption
of coal. Every branch of manufacture receives a
fresh impulse—hand labor is still further replaced
by mechanical labor” (152-153).

End of excerpt.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 19:27:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Out on an oil price limb

This argument is the same as Jack Dingler's (weaseldog), but
in different language, and with some interesting consequences drawn.
Seems plausible to me.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 06:08 PM 1/1/02 +0000, Paul, "pcjohns_98" wrote:

>I have no idea what will really happen to the price of oil, but on
>this thread I have suggested that in the long run its price be
>"too" low rather than "too" high -- even if
>Hubbert's peak is
>imminent.
>
>In suggesting the possibility of a price that is "too" low, I
>haven't taken myself very seriously. The idea seems crazy. Yet
>the
>more I think about the matter, the more I am inclined to crawl out on
>a limb, and risk making a fool of myself by stating flat out: the
>price of oil is going to be "too" low as we enter the peak
>years.
>
>The reason I crawl out on a limb has to do with three relationships.
>
>The first:
> 1) The elasticity of the price of oil with respect to the supply of
>oil. We assume that this relationship is negative, i.e., as the
>supply of oil goes down, the price of oil goes up.
>
>Next:
>2) The elasticity of the price of oil's substitutes with respect
>to the price of oil. That is, what happens to the price of coal
>(let's say) as the price of oil goes up? We assume this to be
>positive. (People find ways to substitute coal for oil, which
>increases the demand for coal, which drives up the price.)
>
>Third (and crucial) relationship:
>3) The "elasticity" of the whole economy with respect to the
>price of oil. This one we assume to be negative: as the price of oil
>goes up, the general level of economic activity goes down.
>
>When Hubbert's peak arrives (or when there is tightness in oil
>supplies for any reason), relationship number one kicks in. Oil
>supplies go down, and oil prices go up. Then relationship number two
>kicks in: oil prices go up, and prices of oil's substitutes also
>go up. Then relationship number three kicks in: energy prices go
>up, and economic activity goes down. Result: prices in the energy
>sector drift down.
>
> The basic assumption at work in my "model" is that high oil
>prices discourage more economic activity than they encourage.
>
> Although plausible to suppose that the discouraging effect of high
>priced oil might be a dominant tendency, people nevertheless seem to
>be ignoring the possibility. Why?
>
> As far as I can tell, everybody assumes more or less unconsciously
>that oil is like sugar. With sugar, as with oil, if supply goes
>down, prices go up; and if prices go up, prices of substitutes also
>go up. But when it comes to the way that the price of a commodity
>affects an entire economy (my relationship number three), sugar and
>oil are not similar. Let the price of sugar go through the roof, and
>not much changes, except farmers plant more sugarcane. Not so with
>oil. When the price of oil goes through the roof, the economy itself
>responds by going through the floor.
>
> Relationship number three keeps the price of oil low over the course
>of an oil patch cycle. Such prices will be "too" low -- in
>spite of moments of volatility when they spike upwards -- if they
>cause a series of counter-productive reactions:
> * under-investment in the oil industry;
> * under-investment in the development of substitutes;
> *under-investment in energy saving measures;
> *over-investment in status quo infrastructure (roads and cars
>rather than trains and bike paths, for example.)
>
>My guess is that they will cause such counter-productive reactions,
>because the price of oil will not appear to be a problem, and
>people's general uneasiness about the economy will express itself
>as a strong desire to get back to "normal."
>
>Condensed to its essence, the limb I sit on is this:
> tightness of oil supply (for any reason, including Hubbert's
>Peak) manifests itself not in high priced oil, but economic
>instability.
>
> If we do in fact hit a peak of oil production in the next few years,
>the difficulties we face will not only be physical (a lack of oil),
>but also mental: lack of a politically viable way to frame the
>issues, and build a consensus for responses that actually do more
>good than harm.
>
>Paul, sawing away
>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:47:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re:The Law of Entropy

At 09:41 PM 12/31/01 -0800, Matt Adams wrote:

>by re-concentrating metal I mean that if say a chunk of iron over
>time and exposure turns into a pile of rust, we can gather that rust
>togetner, heat it up to remove the oxygen and remake into an
>orderly lump of iron. Thus we undo entropy.
>Matt Adams (Oregon)

You may indeed reduce the entropy of the iron, but
only by degrading the energy required to do so.
(Degrading = consuming its capacity to do work.) The
overall result is a large increase in total
entropy relative to the small decrease of the
entropy of the iron.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:36:44 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re:The Law of Entropy

At 09:41 PM 12/31/01 -0800, Matt Adams wrote:

>As science is attempting to explain the entire universe through
>equations, there is a premise that everything is reversible.
Perhaps so, but any such proposition proposes an
extremely speculative nullification of the second
law of thermodynamics, sometimes called "time's
arrow", since it is the only principle that denies
reversibility. The second law says that *no*
physical process is reversible in such a way that
the universe is the same as if the sequence 1
<process> 2) <any process whatsoever that purports
to be a reversal of 1>" had not happened. There
are some processes which may in principle approach
arbitrarily closely to reversibility, but none may
actually achieve it in real physical experiments.
Most processes are grossly irreversible.

There are many equivalent statements of the second
law. One statement says that all physical
processes increase entropy. Correct observations
that some processes decrease the entropy of *some*
matter are no contradiction of the second law.
(Life processes are often cited, but many non-life
processes have similar results.) Each such case
*always* involves a sufficient increase of the
entropy of *other* matter or energy that the
overall effect of the process is an increase of
total entropy.

One useful way to think of entropy increase is as
decrease in the capacity of energy to do work.
Energy is conserved by all processes (the first
law), but its capacity to do work is not (the
second law). For example, any production of heat
from other energy forms requires a loss by the
energy converted to heat of its capacity to do
work. Any production of work (or electricity) by
conversion from an amount of heat energy to an
equivalent amount of work requires a loss
of the capacity to do work of an additional amount
of heat energy also involved in the conversion
process, but not converted to work.

Using energy does not make the used energy disappear,
but reduces its capacity to support further use.
When we "consume" energy, we really consume its
capacity to do work. the energy itself remains in
existence, but dispersed and degraded.

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the
best supported scientific principles. There are
has never been an observation that contradicted
it, even in the smallest way, that was not
subsequently understood to be a result of
observational error or incorrect interpretation.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:59:41 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Immigration, lifeboats, and denial

At 01:51 PM 12/27/01 +1100, Peter Hill wrote: [no subject]
<snip>

>The consequences of this
>population overshoot and emigration to the Saints' Camp are likely to be
>increasingly frightened electorates in so-called culturally advanced and
>democratic western countries.

<snip>

>Western - indeed global - politics are likely to get very nasty, and I
>reckon that many of those countries that self-righteously scorned the
>recently elected Austrian government of Georg Heider will soon copy the
>Austrian voters' sentiment. I don't agree with egocentric and fearful
>fascistic responses, but this probably represents the genetic roots of human
>psychology very well. Can anyone hear or see Hitler's ghost in this?

Peter, your post conflates two very different
concepts that lead to repression of immigration.

Hitler's concept of racial supremacy is one,
Garrett Hardin's lifeboat ethics is the other.

From a scientific or humanitarian viewpoint,
belief in racial supremacy is silly, despicable,
or both. It is at least conceivable that we are
disposed genetically to such beliefs because they
once led to solidarity among related people.

Lifeboat ethics, on the other hand, seems to be
simply a logical consequence of overshoot of the
human population--necessary under the
circumstances, resulting from a dispassionate
means-ends analysis of the problem of survival,
and devoid of any deep psychological or genetic
causation.

This conflation is going to be increasingly
popular. 1) Proponents of immigration are happy to
tar its repression with racism. 2) Non-racist
believers in lifeboat ethics will either simply
not be heard, or will not speak out because of 1).
3) Lifeboat ethics itself will not become popular
because accepting it requires accepting the
reality and significance of human overshoot, which
are deeply denied. 4) Immigration will cause
increasingly severe problems and resentments
because of the iron logic of overshoot. Actions to
repress immigration will be taken, but will be
supported with weak or incomplete arguments which,
by being seen to be inadequate to justify the
misery caused, will increase the vulnerability of
such actions to epithets of racism.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:01:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Our "deeply psychological" flaw is

At 04:03 PM 12/23/01 -0600, Tulkin wrote:

> Our "deeply psychogical" flaw, folks, is denying
>that the elites have brainwashed so many. For
>millennia, elites have been re-training most of
>us, grinding down our inate capacities to live,
>cooperate and grow as individuals, families and
>societies. To them, most of us are "expendable,
>collateral damage. " And we let them get away with
>it! We let elites tell us where and how to live,
>how to get from home to work, what to make &
>consume, and where/when to send our youth to wars
>to protect the elite interests.

Tulkin, what makes you think the elites are not
just as brainwashed and deluded as anyone else?
Even senior executives of oil companies, who know
that oil is almost over, manage to convince
themselves, or allow themselves to be convinced,
that human ingenuity propelled by higher prices
will solve the problems of the decline of oil.
Sure, they act to prevent or confuse clear
statements of the problem, 1) because clear
understanding of the problem is against their
financial and career interest, but also 2) because
they believe that the problems will be solved by
market forces so that their children can have a
good world. In other words, they choose, like
almost everybody, to believe that "alarmists just
don't understand economics and technological
progress".

I am sure there is an inner circle of cynical
elites who have given up on the world outside the
US and who are acting to make sure the US has an
unfair share of declining oil, but I'll bet even
these believe that they are doing it to gain
time for the markets to solve the problems, and
hope to preserve the US in recognizable
form for their children.

Most of us, elites included, cooperate
enthusiastically in a mutual brainwashing. When we
are finally compelled to see that problems are
real, massive, and insoluble, we will forget our
complicity, and look to punish the wicked people
who caused the problem, or denied it. We are the
cause, we are the deniers.

David Delaney, Ottawa





Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
CC: "brucehoultthomson" <bruce@sympatico.ca>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:50:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Clarification please

At 09:44 AM 12/19/01 +0000, Bruce Thompson wrote:

>I'd be grateful if anyone could clarify the
>dramatic quote of H. T. Odum where he suggests
>that the USA fossil fuel energy use is a hundred
>times the quantity of solar energy being absorbed
>by the entire USA.

>>1993 total U.S. fuel use in solar emjoules/yr is
>>shown on page 314 to have been 4.78 x 10e24 sej.
>>For 2000 it is higher.
>>
>> From page 187 total net solar radiation absorption
>>for Alaska and the lower 48 was 4.48 x 10e22 sej.

And then at 07:59 AM 12/21/01 -0500, Bruce wrote again:

>There is a good reason why I want an confirmation
>and clarification about the constant sunfall on
>the USA being a hundredth of the current fossil
>fuel energy energy consumption.
>
>If true, it's a very dramatic fact that transfixes
>most people I mention it to, and that means the
>media will pick it up as support for energy
>conservation and solar technologies etc.

Bruce, have a look at your re-characterization of
Steve Morningthunder's quote of Odum in the second
last paragraph above. You have gone from a
statement, in the first paragraph above, that may
or may not be true, depending on what "absorbed"
means, to a statement that is obviously false. The
"sunfall on the USA" is many times greater than
the current rate of US energy consumption.

Area of US = 3.5 million sq miles (3.5e6 square mile)
Area of US = 3.5e6 sq mi x 2.6e6 sq m / sq mi = 9e12 sq m

Assume a very low average sunfall per sq meter of 0.5 kWh per day
(value at top of atmosphere is of the order of 10 kWh per day)
to get a lowball estimate of 9e12 x 0.5 = 4.5e12 kWh/day, or
1.6e15 kWh/year of sunlight "falling" on the USA.

This amounts to 1.6e15 x (joules in 1 kWhr
(3.6e6J)) = 6e21 joules per year.

The total US energy use from all sources of fossil
fuel, hydroelectric, and nuclear is slightly more
than 100e18 joules per year. So the sunfall on
the USA is at least 60 times greater than all
fossil fuel use. (This is low, I'm winging it very
conservatively on the back of an envelope here.
Remember, this calculation uses a low value of
"sunfall" per square meter.

If we assume that we could get 20 kWh per year
from one square meter of current technology PV (a
very conservative assumption) it would require
approximately 1.4e12 sq meters, or one sixth of
the area of the USA to provide all the energy
currently used by the US. This is quite
conservative. Newton will probably write to say
the necessary area of PV is smaller, even much
smaller. He will probably be right.

I do not write this to promote PV, about which I
am quite skeptical on payback time and eroei
grounds.

Here's my point:

If even Bruce Thompson can slip into a form of
statement of this idea that is false (almost) on its face,
how can you hope to get people to understand even
a true version (assuming it turns out to be true)
of the first statement to a level that will enable
them to defend themselves when contradicted
ferociously by a local professor of physics when
he hears the second statement even though the
first statement was carefully phrased? How do you
get your newspaper guy to the level that he can
deal with the same professor when he's verifying
the story prior to publishing?

Even if the statement is true in some sense, what
is its significance if an area of a sixth of the
US (at most) is enough to supply all current US
energy needs by PV? (I am not suggesting that
paving a sixth of the US with PV is a practical
possibility.) I know the Odums claim to have an
answer to such questions based on transformities.
But is it dramatic? It's certainly controversial.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:56:43 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Indirect energy inputs and EROEI--was Nuclear Power

At 06:03 PM 12/18/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:

>[indirect energy costs]
>I think we need to be clear here what we mean with
>net energy.

Heiko's definition:

>The most common approach is to say net energy is
>what's left over for consumptive (or investment)
>purposes, after the energy expenses of producing
>the energy have been met.

End of Heiko's definition

Heiko's comment on his definition:

>This definition automatically excludes consumptive
>energy expenditures (such as the adventure
>holidays of government workers whose salaries have
>been paid from power company taxes) from net
>energy calculations.

The definition above does not exclude
"consumptive" energy expenditures necessary to
produce the energy, (e.g. those necessary to
maintain the employee component of the energy
generating process.) As a result I could live with
this definition. You could introduce language to
exclude these necessary but consumptive inputs, of
course, but this would be perverse, and would
reveal the artificiality of the exclusion. For
example:

Perverse definition:

Net energy is what's left over for consumptive (or
investment) purposes after the non-consumptive
energy inputs required to produce the energy have been
met.

End of perverse definition.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:14:32 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Indirect energy inputs and EROEI--was Nuclear Power

At 12:22 PM 12/20/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:

>And why do you want to include consumptive
>expenditures in net energy?

[The question refers to including the salaries of
employees in the dollar cost by which the e/gdp
ratio is multiplied to obtain the energy inputs to
an energy producer in order to calculate eroei.]

The e/gdp energy estimation method is based on the
fact that a statistically predictable amount of
energy consumption will be created by a payment of
money for services. Energy purchased by employees
according to such a prediction, whether directly
or indirectly, is therefore an inescapable energy
consumption consequence of the existence of that
energy producer. In other words these energy
expenditures are a necessary energy input to the
"maintenance" of "components" of the energy
producer, namely the employees. The magnitude of
these indirect energy inputs depends on the nature
of the energy producing technology. If we wish to
compare the *energy* consequences of different
technologies, we must include these indirect
inputs.

Some particular employee may choose to spend his
money in a more energy intensive way than average,
but high contributions will balance low
contributions from other employees. The e/gdp
estimation method is a *statistical* estimation
method.

If, *in a particular case*, you can identify
anomalous factors that would systematically bias
the e/gdp estimation procedure, then you have
to deal with them by some modification of the
method, or by use of a different method *that also
includes indirect energy inputs*. The mere
conceptual possibility of anomalous factors does
not invalidate the method, and requires no
modification of it.

Heiko's arguments have the following form: 1)
adduce an unusual situation that, if it were to
dominate the use of salary or other payments,
would render e/gdp estimation invalid; 2) conclude
that e/gdp estimation is therefore invalid. This
is not sound reasoning.

An argument against the use of the e/gdp energy
input estimating method in a particular case must
show that the dollar expenditures of the case have
energy consumption consequences that are not
typical of dollar expenditures in the economy as a
whole.

The same is true for all other costs, salaries,
fees, and taxes. It is not sufficient as a
counter-argument to propose a tax that would
render the method invalid. It is necessary to show
that the taxes in a particular case are
sufficiently "unfair" to bias the result. It seems
very likely that government expenditures have
energy consumption consequences that are typical
of dollar expenditures in the economy as a whole.
The e/gdp method is not, therefore, invalidated by
a tax that pays for the burden of government and
government services created by the project being
evaluated.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:33:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 04:15 PM 12/17/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:

>in other words the worker's expenditure on
>gasoline for his holiday trip is not part of the
>energy cost for a power plant. That expenditure is
>just due to the worker being alive and living in
>the United States, it doesn't depend on what he
>does for a living.

Suppose that one project requires ten workers and
another requires a thousand workers. Both sets
of workers must eat, be housed
in heated or cooled dwellings, drive to work (or
vacation), consume items that require energy for
their manufacture, etc. The energy required in
this way is roughly a hundred times greater for
the project with a thousand employees than for the
project with ten employees. If we need to know the
energy inputs of a project in order to
compare its energy requirements to competing
projects, we would make a huge mistake by not
including such indirect energy requirements.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:00:33 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 01:31 PM 12/17/01 -0500, David Delaney wrote:

>The first source of silliness is that the E/GDP
>energy estimation method needs to be modified when
>direct energy inputs form a large fraction of the
>total energy inputs to the project being
>evaluated. The appropriate modification is to
>figure the total energy input by adding the direct
>energy input and the indirect energy input. To
>figure the indirect energy input, you subtract the
>dollar cost of the direct energy input from the
>total dollar cost of the project, and multiply the
>remainder by the E/GDP ratio.

I did not mean to say what may be implied above--
that it is necessary to identify all direct energy
inputs. It is sufficient to identify large obvious
direct energy inputs which would be unreasonably
reduced to the point of significantly reducing the
total input energy if they were treated as
indirect inputs--i.e. which would produce
significant error if their magnitudes were
reduced by multiplying their dollar costs by
E/GDP.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:22:47 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Correction: Re: Nuclear Power

I should have said !!!one order!!! of magnitude.
(A factor of ten.)

At 02:18 PM 12/17/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:
>[Dollar costs is not equal to Energy costs]

(From below)
>The energy required for constructing the plant is very
>small indeed.

This data given in this article for "plant build
and decommission" must ignore indirect energy
inputs to get such a low value (0.27 percent of
life cycle energy costs). This mistake (and
perhaps others) makes it wrong by about !!!two orders!!!
of magnitude. This makes me suspicious of all data
presented in the article.

David Delaney, Ottawa



>http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm
>
>"The Swedish utility Vattenfall has undertaken a thorough life cycle
>assessment of its Forsmark nuclear power station, which has three
>boiling water reactors totalling 3100 MWe net. These started up in
>1980-84 and run at 86.4% capacity. The energy analysis figures
>(transport included, 40 yr plant life, with PJ figures calculated
>from % on basis of 3272 PJ output) were:
> Percentage PJ
>Mine 0.44 14
>Refining & conversion 3.18 104
>Enrichment (80:20 centrifuge:diffusion) 3.00 98
>Fuel fabrication 1.34 44
>Plant operation 0.28 9.2
>Plant build & decommission 0.27 8.8
>Waste management 0.11 3.6
>Waste build & decommission 0.01
>Total life cycle: 8.70 % 285 PJ"
>
>This is a conservative study, with more energy efficient enrichment,
>refining & conversion and fuel fabrication the overall percentage
>drops to 1.7%. The energy required for constructing the plant is very
>small indeed.
>
>If electricity from nuclear power plants is used for efficient
>enrichment, then CO2 are lower than for wind or PV.
>"Kivisto reports a similar exercise for Finland (all kg/MWh CO2):
>wind 14, nuclear (centrifuge) 10, nuclear (diffusion) 26, Solar PV
>95, gas 472, and coal 894."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:15:41 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 02:18 PM 12/17/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:
>[Dollar costs is not equal to Energy costs]

(From below)
>The energy required for constructing the plant is very
>small indeed.

This data given in this article for "plant build
and decommission" must ignore indirect energy
inputs to get such a low value (0.27 percent of
life cycle energy costs). This mistake (and
perhaps others) makes it wrong by about two orders
of magnitude. This makes me suspicious of all data
presented in the article.

David Delaney, Ottawa



>http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm
>
>"The Swedish utility Vattenfall has undertaken a thorough life cycle
>assessment of its Forsmark nuclear power station, which has three
>boiling water reactors totalling 3100 MWe net. These started up in
>1980-84 and run at 86.4% capacity. The energy analysis figures
>(transport included, 40 yr plant life, with PJ figures calculated
>from % on basis of 3272 PJ output) were:
> Percentage PJ
>Mine 0.44 14
>Refining & conversion 3.18 104
>Enrichment (80:20 centrifuge:diffusion) 3.00 98
>Fuel fabrication 1.34 44
>Plant operation 0.28 9.2
>Plant build & decommission 0.27 8.8
>Waste management 0.11 3.6
>Waste build & decommission 0.01
>Total life cycle: 8.70 % 285 PJ"
>
>This is a conservative study, with more energy efficient enrichment,
>refining & conversion and fuel fabrication the overall percentage
>drops to 1.7%. The energy required for constructing the plant is very
>small indeed.
>
>If electricity from nuclear power plants is used for efficient
>enrichment, then CO2 are lower than for wind or PV.
>"Kivisto reports a similar exercise for Finland (all kg/MWh CO2):
>wind 14, nuclear (centrifuge) 10, nuclear (diffusion) 26, Solar PV
>95, gas 472, and coal 894."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:31:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 01:13 PM 12/16/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:
>[What's wrong with using Dollar costs as a proxy
>for energy costs?]
<snip>
>Now imagine an oil well owner who has to buy in 2
>kg of oil for 1 kg he produces, assuming Dollar
>costs as a proxy for energy costs would give the
>following. The 2 kg cost him 30 cents, now convert
>that to energy using the standard conversion of 4
>Dollars per kg of oil equivalent and the energy
>costs come out as 0.3 over 4 is 0.075 kg of oil
>equivalent, and if the other costs (in Dollars)
>are low, this great and wonderful method of using
>Dollar costs as a proxy for energy costs, shows a
>net energy ratio greater than 10 to 1, even though
>the oil well is actually a net energy loser!!!!

I agree that the above calculation is silly. There
are two sources of silliness here, both of which
should be avoided when applying the E/GDP method
of estimating energy inputs to a project. (The
silliness is not in using 4 dollars per kg of oil
equivalent as the US$/USGDP ratio--that's correct.)

The first source of silliness is that the E/GDP
energy estimation method needs to be modified when
direct energy inputs form a large fraction of the
total energy inputs to the project being
evaluated. The appropriate modification is to
figure the total energy input by adding the direct
energy input and the indirect energy input. To
figure the indirect energy input, you subtract the
dollar cost of the direct energy input from the
total dollar cost of the project, and multiply the
remainder by the E/GDP ratio.

The second source of silliness is the assumption
that "the other dollar costs" are low (in fact you
assume they're zero). To obtain indirect energy
use, you must perform E/GDP estimation for *all*
other dollar costs:
salaries, fees, taxes if any, depreciation on
equipment, lease payments, insurance, etc., not to
mention the costs of any other needed supplies.

>I much prefer a different way of estimating energy
>costs. You can reasonably easily tally up the
>amounts of concrete and steel required for
>construction of a nuclear plant. You then compare
>that with general construction activity (ie total
>cement and steel consumption). While that's also
>rough and ready, it shows that nuclear plants to
>provide all electricity production could be
>constructed by just economising on other
>construction (eg houses) on the order of 1% for a
>few years (and note construction activity is not
>the largest consumer of energy).

This procedure ignores both direct and indirect
energy input for components other than concrete
and steel. Neither does it satisfy one of the main
goals of energy analysis, which is to allow the
comparison of different technologies. Also, it
does not let us understand the impact on energy
use during the decline (because it does not tell
us the energy use). These faults limit the
usefulness of this kind of selective analysis in
important cases, e.g., nukes.

>The Dollar costs = Energy costs method comes out
>fairly high, because capital costs are high, no
>surprise here. Finally, I should note that there
>have been recent plant completions within 4 years
>(eg in Japan). What little is expended in real
>energy costs (for such things as concrete or oil,
>as opposed to Dollars) over that period does get
>recuperated within the first 0.7 months of
>operation.

But not the other, larger in total, direct and
indirect energy inputs to plant construction.

>I've provided a number of links to detailed
>studies of energy (as opposed to Dollar based) net
>energy studies in previous posts.

To the extent they ignore indirect energy inputs,
they are wrong. Indirect energy inputs are so
significant that we have to have a way to estimate them
or give up entirely on energy input/output
analysis. Zero is a very bad estimate in many
cases, and certainly in the case of nukes.

I agree with your condemnation of Germany's policy
of closing its nukes. Although I have not yet made
up my mind on the appropriateness of building new
nukes, I think that to close a reasonably safe
nuke before the end of its maximum life verges on
criminality or madness.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:56:34 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Economist Article

It seems just a few months ago that The Economist was telling us that
oil was abundant for the forseeable future....

At 06:54 PM 12/15/01 +0000, Seppo wrote:
>Sorry for reposting the Stratfor article on Saudi Arabia. I got
>behind in my reading and did not back to the previous pages to see
>that it was already posted. I think this article in the Economist has
>not been posted yet:
>
>http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=904425



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 08:32:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 05:32 AM 12/15/01 -0600, Gene Tyner wrote:

>In the past, it has taken about 10 years to
>construct one nuclear plant, and let us say that
>it is expected to operate for 30 years before
>decommissioning. If the EROI is 4:1 then this
>means that the plant must operate for 7.5 years
>(after commissioning) before it repays it's energy
>loan, then it begins to provide net energy
>--actually, 17.5 years from start of construction
>before it repays the energy loan, because of the
>10-yr construction time.

Gene, the above analysis assumes that the energy
costs are evenly distributed over the whole life.
It is at least conceptually possible that the
energy costs per day of operation are much higher
than the energy costs per day of construction. If
this is so, then in order to get at the payback
time and dynamic eroei, it is necessary to account
separately for the construction, operating, and
decommissioning costs. I was making a stab at this
in my post. I used the construction cost of
Darlington (CAD $15e9, US $9.75e9) and the US
E/GDP ratio to get the construction energy cost. I
then divided by the operating output per month
(3.6e9 J/s x seconds in a month) to get the
payback time, which comes out to much less than
you calculate, and much more than the 0.7 months
calculated by others, and confirms that if eroei
is indeed in the neighborhood of 4:1 that
operating energy costs per day must be much greater
than construction energy costs per day.

What, if anything, is wrong in this analysis?

David Delaney, Ottawa


>Now, this seems like a reasonable deal. But, if
>we are going to expect that nuclear power is to
>substitute for OIL (and this further assumes that
>we can use the electricity to provide portable
>fuels) then we must build a lot of nuclear plants
>(plus additional conversion plants to convert
>electricity to portable fuel) in a hurry, in order
>for nuclear electricity to substitute for OIL as
>oil becomes scarce.
>
>However, with a 4:1 O/I ratio, even if we were
>only to start one new nuclear plant per month for
>the next 50 years, it would be approx. 20 years
>from the time that the first plant was started to
>realize any positive net energy, and then the
>annual net is small. If the EROI is only 2:1 then
>it is about 30 years before a small amount of
>annual net energy is realized from the system.
>
>Meanwhile, where does all the energy come from
>that is needed to construct ALL THESE PLANTS; i.e.
>12 new plants each year for 20 yrs = 240 plants.
>Most of It must be diverted from the ordinary
>consumption of coal, petroleum, hydro, ad
>infinitum. We would certainly need to reduce
>production of Jaguars, BMW's SUVs, B-1s, F-18s,
>carriers, destroyers, ad infinitum; And if the
>EROI is only 4:1, then 240 plants are not nearly
>enough.
>
>Annual net energy would increase quickly, if the
>construction program were suddenly stopped. but
>then, The North Wind doth blow! And soon we'll
>have snow! And what will the robin do then, poor
>thing?
>
>Houston, we have a problem! Gene Tyner, Sr.
>
>--- Original Message -----
>From: "David Delaney" <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
>To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 8:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power
>
>
> > At 01:07 PM 12/14/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:
> > >[David Delaney asks about operating energy costs, and those incurred
> > >during construction]
> > >
> > >Short summary: operating energy costs are much higher than
> > >construction energy costs, but still not 25% of output.
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > Can anybody tell me why I should consider the
> > GDP/E approach, which generates a much longer
> > payback time than 0.7 months, wildly wrong?
> >
> > Consider the Darlington reactor complex on Lake Ontario
> > which cost, depending on whom you believe,
> > between 13 and 17 billion (Let's say $15e9)
> > Canadian dollars to design, build and commission.
> > Let's assume these are 1997 dollars, although this
> > probably underestimates the true cost. Let's also
> > assume the Canadian dollar was 65 cents American
> > in 1997. I don't know exactly what it was, but
> > this is not far wrong.) Let's further assume that
> > the GDP(US$)/E ratio for Canada and the US were the
> > same in 1997. Again, I don't know the exact
> > relationship of Canadian and US GDP(US$)/E, but
> > equality is not very wrong.
> >
> > Gene Tyner gives us the US E/GDP ratio for 1997 as
> > 12000 Btu/US$ =12e6J/US$. (I verified this number from
> > other sources--total US energy consumption approx 100
> > exajoules, approximate GDP 8.3 trillion (8.3e12) dollars.
> >
> > The total energy consumption to design, build, and
> > commission Darlington was approximately CAD$15e9 x
> > 0.65 US$/CAD$ x 12e6 J/US$ = 1.1e17J.
> >
> > Darlington's maximum output is 3.6 GW.
> >
> > Now, 3.6 GW is 9.3e15J/month, which means,
> > ignoring operating energy costs, (which would
> > increase the payback time)that it takes
> > approximately 12 months at full output to
> > recuperate the energy required to design, build,
> > and commission Darlington.
> >
> >If we accept that the lifetime EROEI of nuclear is
> >say, 5:1, then the operating cost would be
> >approximately 20% of the output, which would
> >increase the payback time to 15 months.
> >
> > If you think this is way off, why?
> >
> > David Delaney, Ottawa
> >



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:43:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] David Fleming's After Oil

At 04:08 PM 12/14/01 -0700, Perry wrote:
>Q - can someone explain the phrase " In the last few months, there are already people in the poorer countries who have found
>that the cost of paraffin for cooking is beyond their reach. "
>
>that is, in what form is the word 'paraffin' used in this context? any further expounding would be appreciated.

"Paraffin" is British for "kerosene".

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:06:46 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 01:07 PM 12/14/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:
>[David Delaney asks about operating energy costs, and those incurred
>during construction]
><snip>
>Short summary: operating energy costs are much higher than
>construction energy costs, but still not 25% of output.

Hmmm...

Can anybody tell me why I should consider the
GDP/E approach, which generates a much longer
payback time than 0.7 months, wildly wrong?

Consider the Darlington reactor complex on Lake Ontario
which cost, depending on whom you believe,
between 13 and 17 billion (Let's say $15e9)
Canadian dollars to design, build and commission.
Let's assume these are 1997 dollars, although this
probably underestimates the true cost. Let's also
assume the Canadian dollar was 65 cents American
in 1997. I don't know exactly what it was, but
this is not far wrong.) Let's further assume that
the GDP(US$)/E ratio for Canada and the US were the
same in 1997. Again, I don't know the exact
relationship of Canadian and US GDP(US$)/E, but
equality is not very wrong.

Gene Tyner gives us the US E/GDP ratio for 1997 as
12000 Btu/US$ =12e6J/US$. (I verified this number from
other sources--total US energy consumption approx 100
exajoules, approximate GDP 8.3 trillion (8.3e12) dollars.

The total energy consumption to design, build, and
commission Darlington was approximately CAD$15e9 x
0.65 US$/CAD$ x 12e6 J/US$ = 1.1e17J.

Darlington's maximum output is 3.6 GW.

Now, 3.6 GW is 9.3e15J/month, which means,
ignoring operating energy costs, (which would
increase the payback time)that it takes
approximately 12 months at full output to
recuperate the energy required to design, build,
and commission Darlington.

If we accept that the lifetime EROEI of nuclear
is say, 5:1, then the operating cost would be approximately 20% of the output, which would increase the payback time to 15 months.

If you think this is way off, why?

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:42:06 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] David Fleming's After Oil

The Prospect Magazine web site has recently become
a closed site--you have to be a subscriber to get
access.

Prospect Magazine has kindly permitted me to post
a copy of David Fleming's "After oil" on my web
site.

<http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/after-oil-david-fleming.html>

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 01:11:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 07:05 PM 12/12/01 -0500, I wrote:
>At 05:15 PM 12/11/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:
> >[Energy pay back time for nuclear]
> >0.7 months from the site of the American Wind Energy Association,
> >which is hopefully reasonably trustworthy in that matter:
>
>A 0.7 month payback on a 40 year life gives an
>EROEI approximation of 57:1, which is not
>reasonable on its face.

Thinking a little more clearly about this, I realized
that I have to separate the operating energy cost
more clearly from the construction energy cost.
Conceptually, these might be quite independent.

Their relationship is determined, however, by
fixing the payback time and the EROEI. The
assertion of 0.7 month payback period with 40 year
life says that the operating energy cost dominates
the denominator of the EROEI ratio. Thus we can
say that if the EROEI is approximately 4:1, and
payback time for construction is 0.7 months, the
construction energy cost is paid by 3/4 of the
output of the nuke for the 0.7 months. (1/4 goes
to pay the operating energy cost.)

This says that the energy cost of operating
the nuke for 0.7 months is 1/3 of the energy cost
of construction of the nuke. This seems to be an
wildly high operating energy cost, which
says that the 0.7 month payback and the 4:1 (or
5:1) EROEI are incompatible--one is wrong or both
are wrong. I suspect the 0.7 month figure is more
wrong than the 4:1 figure.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:05:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 05:15 PM 12/11/01 +0000, Heiko wrote:
>[Energy pay back time for nuclear]
>
>0.7 months from the site of the American Wind Energy Association,
>which is hopefully reasonably trustworthy in that matter:
>
>http://www.awea.org/faq/bal.html
>
>The energy required for constructing nuclear power plants is
>negligible compared to their output.

A 0.7 month payback on a 40 year life gives an
EROEI approximation of 57:1, which is not
reasonable on its face.

If Tyner's static EROEI (approx 4:1) for nuclear is
anywhere near right, a payback time of 0.7 months
is impossible, considering that a nuke has a
lifetime of 40 years. The time to break-even
would have to be several years.

There is something wildly wrong somewhere.

The discrepancy is too large (I think) to be due
merely to the difference between the energy costs
of construction and the combined energy costs of
energy for construction and operation. Just to be
very clear, lets not talk about energy costs of
construction alone. The key point is how long it
takes a nuke to get into positive energy out after
subtracting *all* energy inputs to the break even
point.

Can anyone throw more light on this?

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:10:41 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Matthew Simmons and Limits to Growth

At 07:06 PM 12/10/01 +0000, Terrell Larson wrote:
>--- In energyresources@y..., David Delaney <ddelaney@s...> wrote:
> > Prominent oil industry consultant Matthew R.
> > Simmons relates his experience of rereading Limits
> > to Growth:
>
>It has been about 30 years since this FLAWED analysis was published.
>The Runge-Kutta integrations did not converge in all cases. Ergo the
>results are, at least in some cases, meaningless.

You imply Limits to Growth had internal logical
errors. Can you provide a more detailed critique,
or reference to one?

Also, read Simmons's essay to see that large parts (at least) of
the analysis are being validated by the first 30 years of
post-analysis experience.

David Delaney

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately, our ability to predict is clouded and distorted by our ability to believe, and all gets in the way of just trying to figure out what is happening and what we folks may be able to do about it.

As for "Limits to Growth."

The Systems Dynamics folks themselves were some of the best critics of the Systems Dynamics models that were the backbone of the "Limits to Growth" studies.

The models were, after all, done more than thirty years ago, and SOMETHING had to be learned from the experience.

There was also several other things at work here.

The first was that practically all analysis has been carried out in an intellectual environment directed toward particular ends--mainly either to perpetuate business-as-usual growth or to counter the idea. Little, or rather virtually no analysis has been done to discover the most likely reality of our future.

Second, We have no credible and effective means of comparing the relative merit of one form of analysis over another. This means that not only is it difficult to actually improve on models like those used in Systems Dynamics, but we have no common agreement on what a real predictive model should be, how it would work, how it can be verified, and how we could use it.

This highly unnecessary, self-imposed intellectual bias sets up what is perhaps the most dangerous circumstance of our times--that we could know better about tendencies, options, and problems, and we tenuously resist trying to discover what they are in the most accurate, rigorous and useful way possible.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:44:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] LLNL Energy Flow Charts

I do not believe that figures drawn from the LLNL
charts bear your interpretation.

Much the greater part of the rejected energy of
these charts is a requirement of the second law of
thermodynamics -- heat rejected by internal
combustion engines and generating plants. In
other words, these charts provide an estimate of
the efficiency only of our energy transformation
technologies. There is only a little room for
making most of these technologies more efficient.
(Possible exception: distributed micro-cogeneration.)

Improving energy efficiency is making energy do
more per unit expended. There is a lot of room
here for improvement, but most of the improvements
would not change the proportion of rejected energy
in these charts.

David Delaney, Ottawa

At 12:10 PM 12/9/01 -0500, Andrew Rudin wrote:
> From the five LLNL energy flow charts (1995-99), I extracted the
>following information. My interest was to determine if there have been
>increases in aggregate national efficiency. I determine that there is
>no significant change over the past five years, in spite of all the
>improvements in technology. Any comments?
>
>Net Energy Primary Resource Consumption in Joules
>Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>Website: http://en-env.llnl.gov/flow
>
>Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
>
>Useful 33.6 37.4 37.7 36.2 38.8
>Rejected 52.2 53.8 54.7 54.9 56.1
>U + R 85.8 91.2 92.4 91.1 94.9
>Efficiency 39% 41% 41% 40% 41%
> (U/U+R)
>
>Domestic 76.3 77.9 77.8 77.9 76.6
>Imports 23.5 25.4 26.2 27.3 27.8
>Exports 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.4 3.7
>I + I - E 95.1 98.4 99.3 100.8 100.7
>
>Andrew Rudin
>Energy Management
>7217 Oak Avenue
>Melrose Park, PA 19027
>215-635-1122
>
>~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
>
>Look at the above over a fifteen year time span. And the results will be no more encouraging.
>
>We will not see real advances in energy efficiency till folks come to realize that the **only** course to future economic advancement will come from making the declining resources available to us do more than we ask of them now.
>
>It is also true that the highest return on energy, economic, and political investments will come from the development of real working energy efficiency programs, founded on the democratic principle of the publich recognizing the reality of their lives and accordingly seeking and taking the best course of action.
>
>~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:47:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Nuclear Power

At 06:28 PM 12/9/01 +0000, Tom Tucker wrote:

>The primary roadblocks to NP are political....

This thread is ignoring the main contribution of
the point of view of this group: the importance of
EROEI and energy payback time.

See Gene Tyner's work, introduced by message 9226
at
<http://home.mmcable.com/oivf/index.html>

This work has shown that the energy recuperation
period for a building program for nuclear energy
is such that more than two *decades* (optimistic
projection) elapse before the generating plants
return more energy than was required for their
construction and fuel supply. See
<http://home.mmcable.com/oivf/table3.htm>

Tyner also shows that the EROEI for nuclear power
is less than 4:1 (Tyner's optimististic static
EROEI). It would seem difficult to maintain our
industrial civilization with such a low EROEI for
our primary energy source.

Now, this work may be wrong, but it hasn't been
refuted--at least no one in this list has adduced
a refutation. It therefore seems odd that this
list would carry on a discussion of nuclear power
that assumes its primary roadblocks are elsewhere.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:54:12 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Matthew R. Simmons

From
<http://www.houston.org/partnership/mrsimmons.htm>

Matthew R. Simmons

President,
Simmons & Company International

Matthew Simmons heads a specialized energy
investment banking firm that has guided clients in
more than 400 investment banking projects for a
combined value of approximately $40 billion.

Simmons founded the company in 1974.

He is a trustee of Museum of Fine Arts, Houston;
The Farnsworth Art Museum in Rockland, Maine; and
Commonfund Capital, Inc. of Westport, Connecticut.
He serves on boards of Kerr-McGee Corporation,
Houston Technology Center, Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institute and the Center for
Houston’s Future. He is a member of The University
of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Foundation
Board of Visitors and is a charter member of the
University of Houston National Advisory Council.
He is past chairman of the National Ocean Industry
Association and is a past president of the Harvard
Business School Alumni Association and a former
member of the Visiting Committee of Harvard
Business School.

Simmons graduated cum laude from the University of
Utah. He received his master’s in business
administration from Harvard Business School.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:05:00 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] Matthew Simmons and Limits to Growth

Prominent oil industry consultant Matthew R.
Simmons relates his experience of rereading Limits
to Growth:

"Revisiting the Limits to Growth, could the Club
of Rome have been correct after all?", October
2000. (Year wrong?? 2001? 2000 in document)
<http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research/docview.asp?viewnews=true&newstype=2&viewdoc=true&dv=true&doc=172>

If you have trouble using the above link (although
I checked it carefully before sending) use the
following list of words as an argument to Google:
matthew simmons limits growth correct
club rome. Click "I feel lucky".

A quick search in the energyresources archive did
not reveal to me whether this article has been
brought previously to the attention of the list.

It is commonly said that the Club of Rome was
wrong. It is said that Limits to Growth predicted
X, and X has not come to pass. Simmons repudiates
these claims. This is an extraordinary statement
from an oil industry insider.

Here is a quote from the article

Start of quote:
In fact, for a work that has been derisively
attacked by so many energy economists, a group
whose own forecasting record has not stood the
test of time very well, there was nothing that I
could find in the book which has so far been even
vaguely invalidated. To the contrary, the chilling
warnings of how powerful exponential growth rate
can be are right on track.
End of quote.

David Delaney, Ottawa

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Use the Google search to get to the location of the paper and then do a Ctrl-F search for "limits" (no quotes) to find the second article on Limits to growth.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 19:24:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Nuclear Power

At 12:41 PM 12/7/01 -0800, Ron Patterson wrote:

>Basically we will do it the same way we are doing it
>right now, since cheap oil is not the primary fuel in
>any major power plant in America.
>
>Right now most power plants are powered by coal, a few
>nuclear, a few hydro plants and a very few natural gas
>plants. All the natural gas plants could be replaced
>by coal with hardly a ripple.

Ah, but look at
<http://en-env.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/usenflow-98-100exajoules.pdf>
to see that residential and commercial use of NG is
actually greater than residential and commercial
use of electricity (8.5 NG energy vs 8 GJ electric
energy). (Industrial use of NG and electricity is
a separate category with 3.8 GJ of electricity and
10 GJ of NG.)

What happens as we go over an NG cliff? Every householder
buys and plugs in multiple electric heaters. Not to mention
what the commercial users do.

Also, NG is the largest single
energy input to US industry by quite a margin (not counting
transportation energy.) Presumably there would be similar
attempts in industry to shift to reliance on electricity.

Do I hear someone say "Olduvai cliff event"?

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 18:41:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Nuclear Power

At 12:41 PM 12/7/01 -0800, Ron Patternson wrote:

>The chart someone posted on Energy Resources a few
>months back showed only a very small percentage of the
>total electricity being generated by natural gas and
>only a tiny sliver being generated by oil.
>
>I have misplaced the URL for that chart, if anyone
>still has it, would you please repost it?

<http://en-env.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/usenflow-98-100exajoules.pdf>

<http://en-env.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/usenflow-97quads.pdf>

Wonderful charts originally brought to our attention by Jay Hanson.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 21:59:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [energyresources] North Sea Capable of 50% More, Says Oil

At 10:07 AM 12/4/01 +0000, szoraster wrote:
>http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?
>pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3UT2SJSUC&live=true&tagid=ZZZCWHK1B0C.
>
> From the Financial Times:
>
>North Sea Capable of 50% More, Says Oil Report

As usual, the writer shows no understanding that the "50% more"
estimate and the "gloomier" estimate of Matthew Simmmons may
*both* be true. In other words, there is no understanding
of the importance of the *rate* at which the extra oil may
be extracted.

David Delaney, Ottawa



Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Back to top...


To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com,CanadaEnergy@yahoogroups.com
CC: <coopers@conscoop.ottawa.on.ca>
From: David Delaney <ddelaney@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 20:37:11 -0500
Subject: [energyresources] More on new thermoelectric devices

Steve Kurtz drew the attention of the coopers list
in Ottwaw to a company called Eneco Inc. Their web site:
<http://www.eneco-usa.com/contact/default.htm>
Eneco has recently issued a press release (November 27, 2001)
on a new thermoelectric device:
<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/electricitydevice.html>

The ideas appear to be different from those
reported in Nature in October in the following
article: Venkatasubramanian, R., Siivola, E.,
Colpitts, T. & O'Quinn, B. C. Thin-film
thermoelectric devices with high room-temperature
figure-of-merit. Nature, 413, 597 - 602, (2001).

The principals of Eneco appear to be Peter L.
Hagelstein, a prominent tenured professor at MIT,
and Yan Kucherov, a Russion physicist (in)famous
for his continued support for and participation in