The collapse of nations

[mbohu 77]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

We make fertilzer, plastics, clothing, rope, paint, asphalt, lubricants, medicines, solvents etc etc from oil and gas.  Which is the best argument that we should not burn it all as fast as we can.

Only additional problem with this is that these various things (different types of fuels as well as materials) are all made from different parts of the extracted raw resource, so we cannot stop burning fuel and then use this leftover oil to make plastics, for example. The part used for fuel is only (or mostly) useable for fuel, and the part used for plastics is only useable for that (again, as I understand from reading and talking to people in tge industry). This also creates the problem that just replacing fuels by alternative propulsion systems, does not solve the problem of needing more fossil fuel extraction, because we would still need the same amount unless we also replaced plastics (and fertilzer, clothing, rope, paint, asphalt, lubricants, medicines, solvents etc etc)

The composition of useful parts is different for each type of extracted oil, but never to the extent that one part can replace the other, and generally it's pretty similar.

When I used to look at a chart like the one below, I used to think, we just choose to use oil in these proportions for these purposes, but apparently this is not so. The proportions are more or less predetermined by the quality of the oil itself: 

[JerryBaumchen 1,262]

8 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Yes, that's a question we'll have to come to terms with sooner or later--independent of the current distractions and divisions (not that they aren't serious as well.)

No matter what the ultimate quantity limit of fossil fuels on the planet is, fact is:

1) They took millions of years to be created and we are burning them down tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of times more quickly (i.e.: they will run out)

2) The energy they are supplying (as well as the materials) are completely at the base of almost everything we do right now; our entire way of life is completely impossible without that amount of energy

3) There is no great incentive to reduce their use, because we are only paying for the cost of extraction, not the real cost of what it would take us (or nature) to recreate them, or the costs to the environment for generations to come, etc. So they are extremely underpriced and we only do not notice that, because the real costs are (or have been) very much projected into the future, or otherwise externalized

4) It's not even really a question of when we run out completely of fossil fuels, but when we run out of fossil fuels, that can be extracted with less energy use, than they will provide after extraction. Original oil was best in that way, fracking already has a much smaller payoff (even ignoring all the other issues that it may have). Eventually we may come to a point where there may very well still be significant untapped sources of fossil fuels in the ground, but getting them out of the ground would take more energy than the extracted resources can provide.

5) We have a worldwide economic system that depends on constant growth for its very existence. On the other hand, it seems that--on a worldwide scale--there is an almost exact one-to-one relationship between total energy usage and total GDP (so if GDP goes up, energy use goes up by the same percentage) This means, if we want to preserve this system without changes, not only do we need to continue to use the amount of energy we use now, we need to increase our energy use exponentially--and in fact, we have been doing this, which is why all this new sustainable energy creation we have recently added, has not helped us to reduce our fossil fuel use, and has instead just added additional capacity to our system, and been used up in addition to the fossil fuels.

The following is not meant to be a realistic scenario that we'll ever have to deal with, because other things will (have to) happen long before that happens, but mathematically speaking, this is a very sobering (and interesting) thought exercise:

• Most economists would think that a GDP growth of 2.3% is quite conservative and required to keep an economy healthy.
• If we applied that growth worldwide, it means that about every 30 years GDP doubles and every 100 years it grows tenfold
• If the relation to GDP and energy use remains constant (as many argue it must), energy use (and therefore energy-production/extraction) has to grow tenfold every 100 years.
• Therefore, looking at this in even tiny time periods as far as the evolution of humanity is concerned:

> within a few hundred years we would have to cover the entire surface of the earth with solar panels, even if we could get solar panels to 100% efficiency (right now we seem to be at 15%-20%) just to get all the energy we need

> even if we built a sphere around the sun and captured all of its radiated energy (rather than just what hits the earth) that would give us about 1,000 years at that growth rate

> Even if it was physically possible to transfer energy at speeds faster than light, so we could capture energy from suns other than our own, in 2,000 years, we'd need more energy than the output of all suns in our galaxy combined.

 

Sure, it's ridiculous...but then again: No economist is called out for being ridiculous when they demand (constant and exponential) growth of GDP

Hi mbohu,

One of the best posts ever on this subject.  Bravo!!!!

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,262]

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's the real point in my view. If we don't blow ourselves up we have, the cosmos willing, maybe 4.5 Billion years to go. It's not too soon to start conserving our 100 years supply, seems to me. Of course, in another billion years Amazon Galactic may be delivering complex molecules overnight through Prime worm holes. So there's that.

Hi Joe,

You are in the ball park.  In this book, the author's say that the life-span of Earth is 12 billion years and that we have used up 4 1/2 billion of those years:  The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World: Ward, Peter: 9780805075120: Amazon.com: Books

I found this book to be a very interesting read; it is not a dry, scientific tome.

Jerry Baumchen

[mbohu 77]

6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

 The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World: Ward, Peter: 9780805075120: Amazon.com: Books

I just ordered it on Amazon. Thanks for the tip!

[JerryBaumchen 1,262]

2 minutes ago, mbohu said:

I just ordered it on Amazon. Thanks for the tip!

Hi mbohu,

Once you finish it, how about telling us what you think of it?

Jerry Baumchen

[mbohu 77]

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi mbohu,

Once you finish it, how about telling us what you think of it?

Jerry Baumchen

Will do.

[DougH 270]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Of course, in another billion years Amazon Galactic may be delivering complex molecules overnight through Prime worm holes. So there's that.

In the sci-fi novel series The Expanse, the Earth continued to be the primary source of "biologics" and complex chemicals that were a necessity for all of the space colonization. I wouldn't be surprised if that plays out in reality if we ever colonize beyond the limit of our atmosphere. 

[JoeWeber 2,562]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

You are in the ball park.  In this book, the author's say that the life-span of Earth is 12 billion years and that we have used up 4 1/2 billion of those years:  The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World: Ward, Peter: 9780805075120: Amazon.com: Books

I found this book to be a very interesting read; it is not a dry, scientific tome.

Jerry Baumchen

We'll just have to see who is right. For all we know the lifespan of the Earth might be 10's or 100's of billions of years or how ever long charcoal lasts after were roasted by our sun.

[BIGUN 1,230]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

I would point out here that the Starship (the one that he's using to go to Mars) uses methane and oxygen, and he's planning to use the Sabatier process to make the methane (carbon neutral.)

OK. I can sleep a little better tonight. Ummm... Just how fucking smart is that man? We need to put him in charge of the US Space Force and put Nick Cannon as Secretary of State. Any man who can have 11 babies with 7 or 8 different women and they all relate - has some serious negotiation skills. 

[JoeWeber 2,562]

17 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

OK. I can sleep a little better tonight. Ummm... Just how fucking smart is that man? We need to put him in charge of the US Space Force and put Nick Cannon as Secretary of State. Any man who can have 11 babies with 7 or 8 different women and they all relate - has some serious negotiation skills. 

I'll bet it's a real doozy at Thanksgiving, though.

[billvon 2,724]

5 hours ago, mbohu said:

Only additional problem with this is that these various things (different types of fuels as well as materials) are all made from different parts of the extracted raw resource, so we cannot stop burning fuel and then use this leftover oil to make plastics, for example.

We actually can; we do it already.

For example, we need oil primarily to make gasoline right now.  But if you just use a fractionation tower to get the right light fractions to make gasoline from crude oil, you can only use about 5% of the barrel for gasoline (and naptha, and kerosene, and butane, and the rest of the lighter fractions.)

To increase our production of gasoline, we do something called cracking.  We use either thermal or steam cracking to reduce the length of the hydrocarbons in crude oil so that a greater percentage of them can be fractionated out into gasoline.  As a result, 45% of a barrel of oil can be used for gasoline, and over 50% can be turned into those lighter fractions.

We adjust this process (pressures, temperatures, dwell times) to produce a feedstock with the fractions we want.  We can adjust this in either direction, to get more heavy fuels/products (bunker fuel, asphalt) or more lighter fractions.

 

 

[lippy 861]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

To increase our production of gasoline, we do something called cracking.  We use either thermal or steam cracking to reduce the length of the hydrocarbons in crude oil….

Trying to make a joke about cracking hydrocarbons getting significantly harsher sentences than straight hydrocarbons, but can’t figure out how to stick the landing. 

[olofscience 459]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

We use either thermal or steam cracking to reduce the length of the hydrocarbons in crude oi

Or catalytic cracking

6 hours ago, mbohu said:

The part used for fuel is only (or mostly) useable for fuel, and the part used for plastics is only useable for that (again, as I understand from reading and talking to people in tge industry).

Actually no, you can pretty much make the entire range of materials from any hydrocarbon. Cracking to reduce hydrocarbon length, polymerisation to increase hydrocarbon length, then various other reactions for other structures (esters, alcohols, benzenes, etc) and then fractional distillation for purification.

The only restriction is the energy needed to make a particular material, i.e. the cheapest way to make polyethylene is to start with ethane distilled directly from crude oil. But you can also make it from heavier naptha, or even without using crude oil at all - coconut oil, for example, but there will be a lot more steps (and energy used) in between.

[gowlerk 2,097]

6 hours ago, mbohu said:

Most economists would think that a GDP growth of 2.3% is quite conservative and required to keep an economy healthy.

Most economists also think that number is a healthy rate of inflation.

[gowlerk 2,097]

5 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

We'll just have to see who is right. For all we know the lifespan of the Earth might be 10's or 100's of billions of years or how ever long charcoal lasts after were roasted by our sun.

If you want to ignore the pretty settled science you could believe that is possible I suppose. Another 5 billion or so till the Sun is in a different phase. But if you know anything about the history of life on Earth it is hard to imagine the era of human life lasting for more than a small fraction of that.

[JoeWeber 2,562]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

If you want to ignore the pretty settled science you could believe that is possible I suppose. Another 5 billion or so till the Sun is in a different phase. But if you know anything about the history of life on Earth it is hard to imagine the era of human life lasting for more than a small fraction of that.

What settled science? Our home star is a main sequence star (save me Olof if I'm fucking up) with a relatively known life span. Sure, we've lately been gifted another unsettled billion years more or less but according to the Mandarins the planet will be roasted sure enough. I'm in concurrence that humanity is unlikely to make it to the final backyard BBQ. Actually, I've shortened my expectations of our species longevity to where I say it's time to give up giving a shit and start the party.

[gowlerk 2,097]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I say it's time to give up giving a shit and start the party.

Too late. Already started without you.

[JoeWeber 2,562]

39 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Too late. Already started without you.

The whole crappy mess truly sucks. I'd be a lot more OK with it if it wasn't so self inflicted. Some bastion of freedom we turned out to be.

[RonD1120 58]

The answer can be found in Jewish eschatology. That is to say, God determined the end at the beginning. 

Man cannot solve the problem or change the outcome.

[Stumpy 283]

1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

The answer can be found in Jewish eschatology. That is to say, God determined the end at the beginning. 

Man cannot solve the problem or change the outcome.

You are kind of right, in that the eventual outcome is predetermined by physics i.e. the death of our star. Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut I guess.

 

[lippy 861]

49 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut I guess.

If it is God's will

[wmw999 2,313]

Thanks, Joe, for posting this topic.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 2,097]

2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

The answer can be found in Jewish eschatology. That is to say, God determined the end at the beginning. 

Man cannot solve the problem or change the outcome.

That is as valid as any other belief. In other words an interesting but worthless guess at what can not be known.

[JerryBaumchen 1,262]

Hi folks,

Herein lies the problem:  Aastha Arora: Where is India's billionth baby now? - BBC News

As Pogo said, 'I have seen the enemy & he are us.'

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,724]

22 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

Herein lies the problem:  Aastha Arora: Where is India's billionth baby now? - BBC News

And I am convinced the solution to that is education for women.  There is a direct correlation between lack of education and births per woman.