SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 368.31+0.6%Nov 7 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (9410)9/18/2006 4:31:01 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (2) of 217630
 
Hi Ashley. I see what you mean. My point wasn't very clear. [Edit, and might even be wrong]

Crude oil is already so full of carbon that going to heavy crudes doesn't make a large difference to the proportion of energy from carbon to carbon bonds as carbon to hydrogen bonds. But as you point out, there is indeed less hydrogen and more carbon. In the case of coal, there isn't any hydrogen to speak of and it's all CO2 with no H2O from the combustion process.

My point was that the cost of the heavier carbonaceous goo from shale, coal and heavy crudes would result in other options being more economic [such as photovoltaics, wind, insulation, bicycling, traveling in cyberspace and nuclear reactors] so even with the shift to carbon burning as regular oil and gas runs down, total CO2 would reduce.

I didn't think of the extra consumption due to processing energy requirements. I am going to change my position and agree that the shift to heavy crudes and coal [and maybe shale] will increase CO2 production per unit of useful energy, certainly for the short term [several years].

Since heavy crudes are available at much lower than current regular crude oil prices, I suppose there will be a shift to them [such as Orimulsion, the 1980s BP product I used to dabble in a bit]. Which will mean CO2 output increases compared with current levels based on regular crude oils which have some hydrogen in them, especially since a lot of methane comes out with the oil. Hmmm, come to think of it, there is a LOT of methane coming out of the ground. If coal and heavy crude replaced that, there would be a large increase in CO2 production.

I will not bet on reducing total CO2 output for the next 30 years. When CO2 reduction happens, I guess it will be because Peak People has been reached, rather than Peak Oil. Depending on H5N1 success, that could happen as soon as February, though H5N1 doesn't seem to be making a lot of progress and it'll run out of steam if it doesn't get going.

Mqurice

PS: France was very good. Too much dog poop, broken glass and graffiti, but otherwise pretty good. Right now in Honolulu and that's much nicer [though a decent baguette would be good].
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext