1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: Today at 02:40:12 AM »
Indeed, 1992 to 1993 and 2006 to 2007 missing from the fancy analysis. Very bad science.
Read All About Arctic on ASI Blog –
Watch all Graphs on ASI Graphs
News:
Using your smartphone? Consider switching to Theme Exodus!
Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 23, 2020, 11:35:46 PM »
Thank you paolo.
3
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 23, 2020, 05:18:53 PM »
Ktb could report politics news related to abortions without resorting to telling a personal opinion. Assume that we all know your opinion and no need to retell it. Tom this applies to you as well.
4
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 23, 2020, 07:29:42 AM »
I ask again, Tom and all, please stop discussing this here. I find what Tom writes to be anathema but I can't respond. There is no positive outcome and only negative ones in discussing religion and dogma on a scientific forum.
5
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 23, 2020, 07:18:01 AM »
Bruce, calculating the EROI of a single tool and of the resulting food calories from its use is a problematic process, fraught with errors. I doubt your result is correct.
However, take a top down approach and it will be easier to figure out. Humanity is currently using an X amount of energy, and the system seems to be functioning, tools get produced, food gets produced, and lots of frivolities are produced too. There is enough energy for all current activities, it is just sourced badly. If you replace all the energy sources with sufficient renewable sources, you would still have enough energy for all current activities. Current energy can be redirected to produce renewable energy sources in large amounts rather easily, as evidenced by the ultra-low price of solar and wind systems. If less Barbie dolls and McMansions get made as a result, I'm fine with that. In the meantime, energy currently being spent on digging up and transporting fossil fuels and on building and maintaining FF power plants will be saved as well.
Is there a limit to solar installations? I think not. It takes time and effort but does not have an intrinsic physical limit, as long as the sun is there. Silicone and glass and non-arable land are abundant materials. Wind will suffer from diminishing returns at some point, but that is still far into the future thanks to ongoing efficiency gains. Storage is also feasible, combining both battery forms and gravity-based solutions, especially when keeping some amount of natural gas backup for the rare days with no wind and no sun over large regions.
I think your personal experience shows solar and batteries can provide enough energy for lots of activities. Now put that solar and that storage in more efficient industrial installations, add wind and hydro, and scale it up as fast as humanly possible. This should be fast enough to replace all FF sources as well as provide energy to those who currently lack it.
The real problem is the rate of the transition - humanity should be making these renewable sources as fast as possible, while cutting down on both FF expenditures and the production of frivolities. And one of the things slowing down this transition is people like ralfy innocently repeating anti-renewable propaganda, as has been peddled on peak oil and nuclear-related publications for years, and exacerbated by the denier crowd.
However, take a top down approach and it will be easier to figure out. Humanity is currently using an X amount of energy, and the system seems to be functioning, tools get produced, food gets produced, and lots of frivolities are produced too. There is enough energy for all current activities, it is just sourced badly. If you replace all the energy sources with sufficient renewable sources, you would still have enough energy for all current activities. Current energy can be redirected to produce renewable energy sources in large amounts rather easily, as evidenced by the ultra-low price of solar and wind systems. If less Barbie dolls and McMansions get made as a result, I'm fine with that. In the meantime, energy currently being spent on digging up and transporting fossil fuels and on building and maintaining FF power plants will be saved as well.
Is there a limit to solar installations? I think not. It takes time and effort but does not have an intrinsic physical limit, as long as the sun is there. Silicone and glass and non-arable land are abundant materials. Wind will suffer from diminishing returns at some point, but that is still far into the future thanks to ongoing efficiency gains. Storage is also feasible, combining both battery forms and gravity-based solutions, especially when keeping some amount of natural gas backup for the rare days with no wind and no sun over large regions.
I think your personal experience shows solar and batteries can provide enough energy for lots of activities. Now put that solar and that storage in more efficient industrial installations, add wind and hydro, and scale it up as fast as humanly possible. This should be fast enough to replace all FF sources as well as provide energy to those who currently lack it.
The real problem is the rate of the transition - humanity should be making these renewable sources as fast as possible, while cutting down on both FF expenditures and the production of frivolities. And one of the things slowing down this transition is people like ralfy innocently repeating anti-renewable propaganda, as has been peddled on peak oil and nuclear-related publications for years, and exacerbated by the denier crowd.
6
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 22, 2020, 02:14:51 PM »oren, are you of the opinion that the energy transition problem has to be solved for all humans and not just for the rich parts?Of course, and I have written along those lines.
I presume you do.
Why would you think otherwise?
It still doesn't make ralfy's EROI arguments any truer.
7
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 22, 2020, 09:32:58 AM »
People who argue against abortion while at the same time arguing against contraceptives. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
I agree though, nothing good will come out of discussing such divisive and religiously-charged issues on the ASIF.
I agree though, nothing good will come out of discussing such divisive and religiously-charged issues on the ASIF.
8
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 22, 2020, 09:07:50 AM »
If you were to drop the irrelevant EROI argument ralfy, stopped claiming solar has diminishing returns, and stopped ignoring the waste heat that comes with FF but is not part of renewable energy, it is quite plausible that most members would agree with your assertions about the need for more energy quantity in the future, the difficulty in making a fast enough transition, and the need to reduce developed countries consumption and overall population growth.
What bothers me is that you make important claims (though rather trivial), but using wrong methods and arguments. In science I think it's not just the conclusion that matters, but the method.
What bothers me is that you make important claims (though rather trivial), but using wrong methods and arguments. In science I think it's not just the conclusion that matters, but the method.
9
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 02:11:55 PM »
There were many reports earlier this year proclaiming the virus natural. Since you make extraordinary claims, feel free to support them.
10
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 02:04:35 PM »Quote
Are you seriously discrediting the Wuhan Institute of Virology connection?Yes. I'll take scientific consensus over your wild and always super-confident opinions any day of the week.
11
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 01:55:35 PM »Quote
The CCP designed COVID in a lab.More idiocy. Getting tired reading your rants.
12
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 21, 2020, 01:53:12 PM »
You do not have to cheerlead Tesla on each and every item. The Solar City acquisition gave a lot of ammunition to TeslaQ at a time when Tesla almost went under. Musk himself said several times how close it was. Besides, the added debt weighed on Tesla, and the loss of management focus and the expenditures on R&D and sales - trying to prove the tiles were real and the whole thing super-justified - did not help either. Now when money is secure and risk of bankruptcy is nil it looks fine, but between 2016 and 2020 there was a gulf the company barely crossed. Tesla did not need solar during that time, and it probably doesn't need solar even now. It did need to get model 3 successfully out the door and solve production issues before money and investor confidence ran out.
13
The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: September 21, 2020, 10:23:18 AM »
Tom, may I suggest something to you? You brought an article and innocently asked for a refutation. I don't think anyone should go medieval on you for it, as you did not realize you were publicizing a biased and malicious source.
(Blum would go medieval, but he would be wrong).
However, it is on you now to remember that the source you read and brought here is indeed biased and malicious. You should stop reading it, and certainly stop posting further articles from it.
I would suggest doing this with all your sources. You shall recognize them by their lies and by their biases. If you want to build a good understanding of the world around you, best stick to the objective sources. Remember - you are what you read.
Just my 2 cents.
(Blum would go medieval, but he would be wrong).
However, it is on you now to remember that the source you read and brought here is indeed biased and malicious. You should stop reading it, and certainly stop posting further articles from it.
I would suggest doing this with all your sources. You shall recognize them by their lies and by their biases. If you want to build a good understanding of the world around you, best stick to the objective sources. Remember - you are what you read.
Just my 2 cents.
14
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 09:24:59 AM »Quote
Big pharma has manufactured this entire crisis.Bbr, every time I think some of what you write makes sense, I read some idiocy like this.
Not to mention the Nazi name calling. I would say you should be ashamed, but I can't hope that this will actually happen.
15
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 21, 2020, 08:47:42 AM »
It's time to thank you again uniquorn, for your immense analytic and graphical contribution on this thread and in many other threads. I am sure your time doesn't come free either. The output is much appreciated by me and by many other posters both silent and vocal, as well as by many lurkers I am sure.
16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 21, 2020, 08:26:59 AM »Latest Five Day ForecastIt's interesting how the deep cold is squeezed away throughout the basin. This will not bring back the melting season but could considerably slow down the freezing season.
Wind + Temp @ Surface
Large GiF!
17
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 21, 2020, 12:32:25 AM »
Hopefully nobody here is human...
But seriously the USA is so fucked up. This will affect all. Very sad.
But seriously the USA is so fucked up. This will affect all. Very sad.
18
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 12:16:08 AM »
No Archimid. You need all countries to eradicate, at the same time. All parts of the population must participate in each country. It's a hard AND function. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
Climate change is actually easier. It requires cooperation by most people in the developed countries and a majority of people in the developing countries. You could eradicate climate change even with 50 uncooperative countries and with a billion people not participating in the effort. Still wishful thinking, but realistically much more possible.
Climate change is actually easier. It requires cooperation by most people in the developed countries and a majority of people in the developing countries. You could eradicate climate change even with 50 uncooperative countries and with a billion people not participating in the effort. Still wishful thinking, but realistically much more possible.
19
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 20, 2020, 11:52:38 PM »
Eradication: theoretically possible. Yes, if everyone stood still for 3 weeks. Realistically impossible, not even worth discussing. Too widespread, too many people around the globe.
20
Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 20, 2020, 03:33:44 PM »
Thanks for the explanation, ASLR.
21
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (September, mid-monthly update)
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:19:23 PM »
Wipneus, if you manage to get a GICE file from PIOMAS, it would be interesting to see the end-season distribution chart.
22
Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:17:48 PM »
Thank you paolo. I much prefer absolute animations over relative.
I find this worrying. That the SSM melange was expected to calve is clear - the relative speeds of the main shelf and the southern shelf necessitate damage to the shear zone. But P2 could have lasted, there was no intrinsic reason it should calve. So it shows again how the main shelf is fragile.
I find this worrying. That the SSM melange was expected to calve is clear - the relative speeds of the main shelf and the southern shelf necessitate damage to the shear zone. But P2 could have lasted, there was no intrinsic reason it should calve. So it shows again how the main shelf is fragile.
23
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 20, 2020, 10:06:47 AM »
It all sounds like a good story but lacking the numbers to back it up. I believe Musk is still trying to justify the disastrous Solar City merger, by talking up Tesla's solar and throwing more development money at the problem. I think the value proposition for residential solar is simply not strong enough, unless the buyer is a die-hard environmentalist. Otherwise this would be selling like hot buns to the general population, which obviously it isn't.
Eventually Tesla might get there, who knows? but they are not there yet, and seemingly quite far away.
Eventually Tesla might get there, who knows? but they are not there yet, and seemingly quite far away.
24
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 20, 2020, 09:43:25 AM »Quote
The claim comes from Hall, and you should find more details if you conduct further research on his studies. If I'm not mistaken, the book is Energy Return on Investment. If you cannot obtain a copy of the work, then the best you can probably do is rely on reviews of the work. For example,Here you go again ralfy. You take numbers for oil and extrapolate them to renewables without justification. As energy from oil is mostly waste heat, while electricity from renewables is not, it would follow that if 15:1 is required for oil, then 5:1 would be required for renewables, all things being equal.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0036850419825936
The gist is that the more things you want, the higher the energy return needed. Thus, if your only goal is to extract oil from the ground, then all you need is a return of 1.1:1. If you want to distribute fuel, 2:1, all the way to funding the arts and other aspects of late capitalism, around 15:1. The reason for this is that activity outside anything that produces more energy is an energy drain, which means if you want what the Internet calls "nice things," then you will need a high energy return, which translates to a high energy surplus.
This even if the extraordinary claim of 15:1 as a minimum requirement is even valid. When challenged on it, you gave an interview by Hall, which came to 11:1. When challenged next, you send readers to read Hall's book. Hall, the professor who invented EROI and has all the incentive in the world to make it an important metric. Honestly, I have better uses of my time. The EROI argument is not convincing enough to go on a wild goose chase.
If the field is so important, where are the mainstream scientific articles discussing and developing it? Why is it so difficult for you to find an updated source for solar PV EROI? Prieto (2017) is a highly biased source that deals with data more than a decade old and is embarrassing to read. You expect other readers to go find EROI numbers, that is a wrong debate approach. You make the claim, you need to back it up.
Quote
Do you now understand the idea of diminishing returns? More than a century ago, you could obtain large amounts of high-grade copper without having to do much digging. At the same time, there was much less demand for copper that time.How much copper goes into solar panels? Is this important? Does Silicon have diminishing returns too? Probably so, but I am guessing so much less than copper.
Decades later, you have to use heavy equipment to move large amounts of earth to get less copper of lower quality. Meanwhile, the market demands even more copper because we've now moved from telegraph machines to the Internet, and beyond.
Diminishing returns: increasing amounts of energy to get less new materials each time.
And what about production efficiency gains? New technologies become more efficient over time. A quick review of solar PV progress over the last two decades will show it takes less materials to create a better, longer lasting and more energy harvesting panel.
Quote
Can you now connect all of the dots that I've been raising in this thread, the one on news about renewable energy, and even the one about overpopulation? Do you now see why we need a very high energy return to maintain the type of industrialized civilization we've set up for ourselves? Do you also see why we need increasing amounts of energy to reverse diminishing returns, to meet increasing demand for profits and ROI by investors, and to meet increasing demand for energy and material resources from growing numbers of people worldwide who want more?We need more energy quantity to maintain a growing industrial civilization. That is a trivial conclusion unrelated to your EROI claims. We need less consumption and less population growth because of physical limits to growth and because of destruction of pollution sinks. That is another trivial conclusion unrelated to your EROI claims.
We do NOT need a high energy return to maintain industrial civilization. The existing energy return of wind and solar energy is more than sufficient for the job. What we need is political and social decisions relating to the transition. Making irrelevant claims about renewable EROI will certainly not help in reaching these decisions.
25
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 20, 2020, 09:01:19 AM »I went through the last 45 days of preprints at The Cryosphere journal looking for new Mosaic articles. There was a third one there, another N-ICE2015 piece now five years out, and quite a few others of interest to this and other Arctic forums, select ones below.Thanks for this. It certainly makes an overworked half-brained layman like myself wish for more available study time. I have marked all articles and will attempt to read them, these seem highly relevant to the melting and/or freezing seasons and to long term forum debates.
26
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 20, 2020, 12:27:30 AM »
A-Team, thank you for the educational posts in this thread.
27
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 20, 2020, 12:26:24 AM »
Walrus, please don't spread nonsense pet theories bordering on denial. Heat is radiated to space in the daytime too, and CO2 does contribute to warming in summer. Temps N of 80 do not cover 14 million km2, and the DMI weighting is further skewed towards the pole. So the region is still refrigerated by sea ice, the loss of which will surely lead to increased summer temperatures.
28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 19, 2020, 10:10:33 PM »
The reference was clear, 2012 vs. 2020 per the attached Hycom images.
29
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 19, 2020, 06:40:19 PM »
OTG, I will delete further fantasy nonsense posts, be warned.
30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 19, 2020, 06:31:26 PM »
I edited some of OTG's comment since it was very far from the truth. 2020 Hycom cannot be compared to 2012 Hycom. There is zero indication sea ice volume is 25% of what it was in 2012. And Hycom cannot be falsified by buoy or local measurement, as it shows average thickness and not hi-res point thickness. Neither can PIOMAS. So this is irrelevant.
31
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (September, mid-monthly update)
« on: September 19, 2020, 09:42:14 AM »
This year's mid-Sep update brings with it a measure of confusion - is the minimum in or not. One can see a clear correlation between volume and single-day NSIDC area. It really does not help that NSIDC area for the 16th came in as identical to the data from the 15th - 2,583,432 km2. Has this been updated? Does anyone know what really happened on the 16th?
Assuming the 15th as the day of the minimum, here are some regional charts as well as analysis of expectations vs. outcome.
* Greenland Sea - a 120 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 100 km3 and early prediction of 125 km3. Regional minimum was 105 km3 on day 242.
* CAA - a 186 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 150 km3 and early prediction of 100 km3. Regional minimum was 162 km3 on day 252.
* Beaufort - a 135 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 140 km3 and early prediction of 125 km3. Min on last day.
* CAB - a 3585 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 3550-3600 km3 and early prediction of 3600 km3 (reasonable/aggressive scenario). Min on last day.
* Total - a 4059 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 3950-4000 km3. Min on last day.
Interestingly, compared to July predictions it was almost spot on, except a big miss in the CAA which is what prevented a clear 2nd place and a <4000 km3 result. However compared to my stubborn though irrational expectation of a new record, very poor performance. In my defense, I believe volume north of Greenland is highly exaggerated by the model. Oh well.
If the min was indeed day 259, finish is 3rd place, a meager 7 km3 behind 2019's 4052 km3 (on day 257). For this we will have to wait until the next update.
Assuming the 15th as the day of the minimum, here are some regional charts as well as analysis of expectations vs. outcome.
Examining my end-Aug updated expectations, things have not been going just as predicted. The following assumes day of minimum is 259.Time for the prediction of volume for the September minimum. Please zoom the regional charts above to follow the analysis.Examining my mid-July prediction, things appear to be roughly on track, but "my money" is going down the drain.
Of the seas traditionally participating in the minimum, the Laptev is nearly zero now. The ESS is record low. The Kara is very low. The Barents is on the low side. Chukchi is rather low as well. All are assumed to be zero in September - for some of these seas that is a very common achievement, for some a rather rare one.
We remain with the four unknowns:
* Greenland Sea - has been running high since spring. I expect it to crash at some point due to melting and lack of imports, especially now that most of the thick ice at the export region has disappeared. My bet is somewhere above 2019 but far below 2012. 125 km3.
* CAA - had a very slow start, but a fast decline. Temps have been running very high for a month. I expect a result above 2012/2011 but probably below 2019. 100 km3.
* Beaufort - the most anomalous. Has been running high and getting higher, due to extra imports and lower exports. I can't see it heading towards near-zero, and foresee a high volume, probably somewhere below 2013's 200 km3, but above 2018's 80 km3. 125 km3.
* CAB - naturally the most variable in magnitude. has been running high in winter and spring, only to crash in the last month back into the fold. From where we are now it is quite common to reach 4000-4200 km3. Following the high losses of 2007, 2012, 2016, we might get to 3600 km3, still above 2012's minimum of 3400 km3. And who knows? We might break loss records, and perhaps even reach a CAB record in September.
Summing everything, we get 350 km3 outside the CAB. With a reasonable/aggressive scenario of 3600 km3 in the CAB, we get a total of 3950 km3, a respectable 2nd, lower than 2019's 4050 km3, but still much higher than 2012's 3670 km3.
However, my money is still on a record low volume. I am betting the impact of the GAAC was partially missed by the model, and will be incorporated later when ice area crashes. In addition, early open water on the Siberian side might eat deeper into the CAB than usual. If a CAB record can be achieved, total volume will probably also reach a record low.
* Greenland Sea - I now expect a 100 km3 finish, compared to prediction of 125 km3.
* CAA - I now expect a 150 km3 finish, compared to prediction of 100 km3.
* Beaufort - I now expect a 140 km3 finish, compared to prediction of 125 km3.
* CAB - I now expect a 3550-3600 km3 finish, compared to main scenario prediction of 3600 km3.
* Total - I now expect a 3950-4000 km3 finish, compared to main scenario prediction of 3950 km3.
My hunch that PIOMAS will somehow catch up to the GAAC effects proved false (for now, for now).
The minimum should be with us in the next PIOMAS update - stay tuned. With the non-stop winds over the basin, predicted major storm, and lots of uncertainty about timing of the refreeze, it's not going to be boring.
* Greenland Sea - a 120 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 100 km3 and early prediction of 125 km3. Regional minimum was 105 km3 on day 242.
* CAA - a 186 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 150 km3 and early prediction of 100 km3. Regional minimum was 162 km3 on day 252.
* Beaufort - a 135 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 140 km3 and early prediction of 125 km3. Min on last day.
* CAB - a 3585 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 3550-3600 km3 and early prediction of 3600 km3 (reasonable/aggressive scenario). Min on last day.
* Total - a 4059 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 3950-4000 km3. Min on last day.
Interestingly, compared to July predictions it was almost spot on, except a big miss in the CAA which is what prevented a clear 2nd place and a <4000 km3 result. However compared to my stubborn though irrational expectation of a new record, very poor performance. In my defense, I believe volume north of Greenland is highly exaggerated by the model. Oh well.
If the min was indeed day 259, finish is 3rd place, a meager 7 km3 behind 2019's 4052 km3 (on day 257). For this we will have to wait until the next update.
32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 19, 2020, 02:42:00 AM »
PIOMAS is quite sensitive to NSIDC area, and I am sure has by now reached its minimum, even if it did not do so on the 15th.
33
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 19, 2020, 01:54:37 AM »
Gandul, what you said about nanning certainly falls outside forum decorum.
addendum .. agreed ! moderation ?
addendum .. agreed ! moderation ?
34
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 18, 2020, 07:02:54 PM »Quote
"Hall" refers to Charles Hall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._S._Hall
There are different terms employed, from biophysical economics to energy economics, but the assumptions are the same: it's energy that drives economy, and is not only the product of renewable energy components but that's needed to make the same components. That said, there is no such thing as having a positive energy return as good enough. The more you want, and the more sophisticated your wants, then the higher the energy return needed. That's why there is very little chance that the type of lifestyle you have today, which includes accessing this and other sites, could have been achieved with muscle and animal power alone.
Given that, what is the energy return needed to maintain such? According to Hall, it's better than 15:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth/
If you think it should be higher, then you're probably right.
You make an extraordinary claim ralfy - 15 is the minimum EROI to run civilization. I challenge you on it - it seems ridiculous. You heap loads and loads of text but the proof is not in sight, Even your source - a professor who has built his career on EROI, who has invented EROI, who I believe is biased on the issue, does not claim what you claim he claims. And what he does claim refers to fossil fuels in general and to oil in particular.
Please carefully read the source you provided:
Quote
For society's energy sources, is it important to consider EROI?
Is there a lot of oil left in the ground? Absolutely. The question is, how much oil can we get out of the ground, at a significantly high EROI? And the answer to that is, hmmm, not nearly as much. So that's what we're struggling with as we go further and further offshore and have to do this fracking and horizontal drilling and all of this kind of stuff, especially when you get away from the sweet spots of shale formations. It gets tougher and tougher to get the next barrel of oil, so the EROI goes down, down, down.
Is there some minimum EROI we need to have?
Since everything we make depends on energy, you can't simply pay more and more and get enough to run society. At some energy return on investment—I'm guessing 5:1 or 6:1—it doesn't work anymore.
What happens when the EROI gets too low? What’s achievable at different EROIs?
If you've got an EROI of 1.1:1, you can pump the oil out of the ground and look at it. If you've got 1.2:1, you can refine it and look at it. At 1.3:1, you can move it to where you want it and look at it. We looked at the minimum EROI you need to drive a truck, and you need at least 3:1 at the wellhead. Now, if you want to put anything in the truck, like grain, you need to have an EROI of 5:1. And that includes the depreciation for the truck. But if you want to include the depreciation for the truck driver and the oil worker and the farmer, then you've got to support the families. And then you need an EROI of 7:1. And if you want education, you need 8:1 or 9:1. And if you want health care, you need 10:1 or 11:1.
Civilization requires a substantial energy return on investment. You can't do it on some kind of crummy fuel like corn-based ethanol [with an EROI of around 1:1].
A big problem we have facing the alternatives is they're all so low EROI. We'd all like to go toward renewable fuels, but it's not going to be easy at all. And it may be impossible. We may not be able to sustain our civilization on these alternative fuels. I hope we can, but we've got to deal with it realistically.
Please focus on what he says. 1.3:1 can get you the refined oil where you need it, but 3:1 at the wellhead (4:1 at the truck site) lets you drive a truck. Have you wondered why? Sure, only about one third of the oil's primary energy goes towards driving the truck, the rest is waste heat. Well guess what? With renewable electricity you barely have waste heat and transportation of the energy is much more efficient too. With solar you could drive the truck on 1.5:1 at most. So treating renewables with the tools developed for oil is simply stupid, I'm sorry, no other words for it.
But in any case, even Hall does not claim the 15 you claimed. At most he claims 10-11:1, for oil. So where did you pull the 15:1 out of?
In addition, Hall treats EROI as reducing over time. For oil he is right. However solar does not have this problem. Again, something relevant for oil is not relevant for our renewable transition discussion.
I suggest to drop the EROI claim from your very circuitous logic. We need to reduce consumption for other reasons, not because of EROI. We have limits to growth for other reasons, not because of EROI.
35
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 18, 2020, 06:39:15 PM »
Tesla autopilot software should be designed with stupid in mind and should not allow such stupidity to result in the described scenario. It should monitor that driver is reasonably alert and if not it should safely halt the car. It should also not accept such grossly over the speed limit parameters from the driver. Whoever wants to break the law flagrantly should do so under their own manual driving. Maximum setting should be 10%-15% above the local speed limit.
I can imagine any number of lawsuits should an AP car with a sleeping driver (with seat reclined!) hit someone.
I can imagine any number of lawsuits should an AP car with a sleeping driver (with seat reclined!) hit someone.
36
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (September 2020)
« on: September 18, 2020, 01:30:07 PM »
Data should be released today or tomorrow.
37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 18, 2020, 01:27:42 PM »
The 2020/2021 freezing season has officially begun.
38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 18, 2020, 03:12:18 AM »
Here is a chart and table I prepared earlier this year based on PIOMAS volume data that I never got around to posting in the PIOMAS thread. Now that the season is over and discussion of 2007 has come up, I will indulge in digressing.
It is a well known fact that 2007 summer was very bad for the ice. However, when checking relative volume performance in the chart, it appears most of the damage was done in Oct-Dec 2006, when the Arctic failed to gain enough volume compared to other years. I am not sure what happened weather-wise or export-wise, but if anyone can shed light on this anomaly it would be welcome.
As the table shows, 2007 had the highest late summer loss, but in terms of magnitude this pales compared to its lowest preceding winter gain. Note the bold numbers are the highest and lowest per period excluding 2007.
Click to enlarge.
It is a well known fact that 2007 summer was very bad for the ice. However, when checking relative volume performance in the chart, it appears most of the damage was done in Oct-Dec 2006, when the Arctic failed to gain enough volume compared to other years. I am not sure what happened weather-wise or export-wise, but if anyone can shed light on this anomaly it would be welcome.
As the table shows, 2007 had the highest late summer loss, but in terms of magnitude this pales compared to its lowest preceding winter gain. Note the bold numbers are the highest and lowest per period excluding 2007.
Click to enlarge.
39
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 18, 2020, 02:28:27 AM »
I am not overly concerned with the coexistence, which is why I did not temporarily lock the new thread. I just find it easier to follow one discussion rather than two, at a time when both freezing and melting are going on around the Arctic.
40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 17, 2020, 10:18:40 PM »
I see it differently, I think both years were eventually quite similar, when using generalizations:
2012 was sunny and warm and then windy and very stormy. It had some extra fluffy ice in the ESS but eventually it melted that ice and was left with a compact pack (and an extent record).
2020 too was sunny and warm and then very windy and somewhat stormy. It had some extra fluffy ice in the Chukchi and Siberian facing sections of CAB, but eventually most of it melted and it was left with a mostly compact pack - except in the CA and the Beaufort arm (and a 2nd place extent finish).
2012 was sunny and warm and then windy and very stormy. It had some extra fluffy ice in the ESS but eventually it melted that ice and was left with a compact pack (and an extent record).
2020 too was sunny and warm and then very windy and somewhat stormy. It had some extra fluffy ice in the Chukchi and Siberian facing sections of CAB, but eventually most of it melted and it was left with a mostly compact pack - except in the CA and the Beaufort arm (and a 2nd place extent finish).
41
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 17, 2020, 06:44:35 PM »
Or in other words, in retrospect this summer might seem quite peaceful relatively speaking, despite it being quite awful in the USA now.
42
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 17, 2020, 05:48:17 PM »I don't trust the statistics coming out of India. However, the country has only 5% of the population above the age of 65, compared to 20% in the European Union, so I wouldn't be surprised if their average IFR was very much lower than in Europe, as Covid mortality is highly dependent on age.QuoteFor an average developed world population it is cca 1%, and for a young, developing world population it is likely 0,1-0,3%.Yes, El Cid, if you go by age distribution. But medical infrastructure is poorer in developing countries. Wouldn't this raise the IFR somewhat?
India seems to prove that 0,1-0,2% IFR is realistic there even with, how to put it, not so worldclass healthcare. See Mumbai, Delhi, etc data.
I think, though I am not at all sure about it, that there is not much you can actually do to reduce mortality once someone falls ill. No matter how high tech your hopsital is. It seems to me that all they do is just basic stuff
Oren - here you go, another poster post pointing out an erroneously low 0.1-0.2IFR.
I’m legitimately curious what posters like this would suggest because according to these incorrect numbers we’re at a relatively low risk.
44
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 17, 2020, 08:04:56 AM »
Really ralfy, this level of discussion is ridiculous.
"Certainly that before the Age of Industrialization" - We are talking about the renewable energy transition, what EROI needed to be before the age of industrialization is highly irrelevant.
"I think Hall argues at least 15" - is not a good argument. Who is Hall? Why does he argue this? Especially since I think Hall doesn't argue that. Check Hall graphic below.
"Just as important is energy quantity" - I disagree, energy quantity is important, EROI is much less so. But in any case this is a deflective argument - I commented on a strong claim you made about EROI, so responding with "but energy quantity" is irrelevant.
It would be really helpful if you tried to whittle down your argument to its basics, and remove from it things that cannot be supported or that have been refuted by the responses in this thread. For example, this ridiculous 15 EROI claim.
This image shows that for 2005 Hall thinks that maybe 5:1 is the minimum for civilization. Not clear why that is the minimum, but certainly it isn't 15:1. In addition, he thinks PV solar is ~7:1, which has surely improved significantly since 2005. In addition in the text he mentions that "EROI for our major fuels (solar may be an exception) are declining over time". So in essence Hall argues solar CAN power industrial civilization.
"Certainly that before the Age of Industrialization" - We are talking about the renewable energy transition, what EROI needed to be before the age of industrialization is highly irrelevant.
"I think Hall argues at least 15" - is not a good argument. Who is Hall? Why does he argue this? Especially since I think Hall doesn't argue that. Check Hall graphic below.
"Just as important is energy quantity" - I disagree, energy quantity is important, EROI is much less so. But in any case this is a deflective argument - I commented on a strong claim you made about EROI, so responding with "but energy quantity" is irrelevant.
It would be really helpful if you tried to whittle down your argument to its basics, and remove from it things that cannot be supported or that have been refuted by the responses in this thread. For example, this ridiculous 15 EROI claim.
This image shows that for 2005 Hall thinks that maybe 5:1 is the minimum for civilization. Not clear why that is the minimum, but certainly it isn't 15:1. In addition, he thinks PV solar is ~7:1, which has surely improved significantly since 2005. In addition in the text he mentions that "EROI for our major fuels (solar may be an exception) are declining over time". So in essence Hall argues solar CAN power industrial civilization.
45
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 17, 2020, 06:07:09 AM »Quote
Meanwhile, the min. needed for civilization is around 15What? Why? Are you implying a renewable EROI of let's say 10 cannot sustain civilization?
46
Consequences / Re: Regional/Local Impacts of Global Warming in the Great Lakes
« on: September 17, 2020, 05:56:28 AM »Quote
I hope that some of the readers of this forum agree.
Indeed.
47
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 17, 2020, 04:53:17 AM »We have credible information emerging from Melbourne right now that the IFR is well beyond 1%.It really does seem that you are obfuscating the issue on purpose harpy. No one said IFR 0.25%.
What's the suggestion by posters of the opinion that this virus has an IFR of 0.25 and only affects the elderly, morbid, and frail individuals?
Just open everything back up, take the masks off, and go back to work?
48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 Freezing Season
« on: September 17, 2020, 03:22:54 AM »
Please continue posting in the melting season thread for a couple of days.
49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 17, 2020, 03:20:00 AM »
Thanks FG, let the thread stand but I prefer posts go into the melting season thread for the next couple of days. NSIDC area is still making new lows for the year, and I'd rather wait for the mid-Sep PIOMAS update on the 19th.
50
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: September 17, 2020, 02:07:57 AM »
You have published it yourself in the data thread. 2020 is #2, 2012 #1.
]https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2975.msg286603.html#msg286603[url][/url]
]https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2975.msg286603.html#msg286603[url][/url]