"CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

When the potential food agriculture that is excluded, is added into the equation, then the net is probably negative... at commercial levels...

 

The plot thickens and spooks are sniffing the air.... http://financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2009/0821.html "Never Ask the Wolves to Help You Against the Dogs"

http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/petch/2009/0821.html Update of Oil and the AMEX Oil Index

 

Well,--- America says its about to recover. Any minute now.

 

- - - - - - From the shock at learning that the truth is A LOT WORSE THAN THEY COULD EVER HAVE IMAGINED....

listen to http://financialsense.com/fsn/main.html all 3 podcasts and lastly by Gerald Celente, Editor & Publisher, The Trends Journal...

 

there is actually no single ratio that covers this one given the various production methods used

being a member of the alcohol fuels group as well I just happen to have that on file
not sure the table will reproduce itself in a coherent fassion though

Corn Ethanol (Industry Average) Corn Ethanol (Industry Best) Corn Ethanol (State-of-the-Art) Cellulosic Crop-Based Ethanol
Fertilizer 12,981 7,542 3,869 3,549
Pesticide 1,060 643 406 437
Fuel 2,651 1,565 1,321 8,120
Irrigation 7,046 6,624 6,046 --
Other (Feedstock) 3,395 3,248 3,122 2,558
Total (feedstock) 27,134 19,622 14,765 14,663
Process Steam 36,732 28,201 26,185 49,075
Electricity 14,444 7,300 5,148 8,925
Bulk Transport 1,330 1,100 800 1,330
Other (process) 1,450 1,282 1,050 2,100
Total (processing) 53,956 37,883 33,183 61,430
TOTAL ENERGY INPUT 81,090 57,504 47,948 76,093
Energy in Ethanol 84,100 84,100 84,100 84,100
Co-product Credits 27,579 36,261 36,261 115,400
TOTAL ENERGY OUTPUT 111,679 120,361 120,361 199,500
Net Energy Gain 30,589 62,857 72,413 123,407
Percent Gain 38% 109% 151% 162%


hmmm
hardly legible

a ratio of ~1/3

on average a 38% gain in BTU's is the industry norm
pretty bad
but
celulitic based ethanol has an industry average of 162% today and thats what the future is leaning towards
but
yeasts are being developed that can handle up to 30% mash alcohol content
and that 162% is measured off the typical yeast used today, Saccharomyces, which can only tolerate concentrations of about 12~15%
so there is an immediate improvement as soon as the new yeast is available in quantity
thing is when the gas prices went down and the economy tanked
so did the ethanol industry

oh
it takes as much corn ethanol to fill a gas tank as could feed a man for a year
with some left over
you are right about that mate
corn ethanol is not the way to go

palm oil is one of the biggest evils we got going
aside from dino sludge that is
palm oil plantations destroys more forest than just about anything else but logging
being a woodwright myself I can appreciate a good looking chunk of lumber and the tree it came from
and timber is a beautifully renewable resource if handled correctly
which a-typically is becoming more the norm specially in regards to hardwood
palm oil is far more often than not grown in a slash and burn environment although there are sustainable methods out there
glad they stopped the project

cheers
B

 

How about algae from the sea?
China's secret experiment was uncovered during the Olympics and it sure grew fast.

 

Palm oil plantations, mile after mile in Malaysia. Some say at least leave a 100yds at the side of the road to make it look nice but no.

And yes slash and burn is all you will see if there is no plantations.

This is south kuala Lumpur right over to the East side and down to Johore.

 

Ok so its walk to work for a year or drive for one week then starve?

 

hehehe - unless one is prepared then it is to enjoy a pleasant walk to the next days commitment to the community in which one lives... and continue to enjoy a sustainable lifestyle...

 

there wont be any walking in the future as the planet will be covered with water

 

Not true ,--there is only enough frozen ice to raise sea level by 30 meter.

 

har har
and yes algae is being looked into
I spoke to a researcher in Cali recently who is working with sea urchin enzymes to digest sea weed into feedstock
problem is salt content being incompatible with existing yeast strains

sea weed would be a perfect feed stock although its not presently viable
the proper enzymes and yeast are not readily available
but its a distinct possibility for the future

funny that you mention it though
I have a chart somewhere around here showing a fresh water plant to yielded the highest ratio energy gain with existing technologies
at present in this vicinity cat tails and switch grass are the two feed stocks with the highest energy gain
basically about 5~7 times that of corn
interesting that none of the big energy corps bothered to use the most efficient of feed stocks
ever wonder why
my bet is they had a vested interest in the value of corn going through the roof


the oceans are not likely to rise by 30 meters
not sure what the actual projected rise is but Ive always disagreed with the idea that its the ocean level that will be the big problem
ok it would effect rice yield and a few other things but
its the disturbance of the grand oceanic current that will be the last straw
and that wont take a 30 meter rise ( or whatever the latest projections are )
my personal take on the result of all that melting ice hitting the system in just a few short years is that it will sufficiently disturb the ocean circulatory system to leave the oceans basically aerobically stratified causing another anoxic deep ocean die off
last time that happened we had the largest extinction event since the first time that happened
which was "the" largest extinction event
everything down to about 5 Kg died
~90% of ocean life
~75 of land animals
then of course there is the snowball earth theory concerning events of about 6 hundred million years ago
science is not sure what caused it or what exactly happened but basically there is strong evidence to suggest the entire planet froze
every land form died except microbes
and nearly every ocean form

simple history
and those who do not understand history
are doomed to repeat it

cheers
B

 

30m....
only gunna be a one small island in Singapore

I think the planet is just repeating its cycle, sea temp goes up, becomes acidic, land temp alters, all the stuff that created the oil comes back etc, as per the movie at the start of the thread and Kevin Costner will become out saviour on his big Cat.

I hear the Gulf stream is slowing down by plenty even though they havn't been measuring it for very long.. thats going to change a few things!

 

That water rise should the global ice melt is fairly easily calculated with access to the appropriate data ground penetrating radar of the ice regions (Iceland & Antarctica) that are above current MSL and on land as opposed to floating and calculations vary and essentially are an "academic exercise " or panic mechanism to reduce the value of canal developments or enhance the credibility of some disaster movie.... numbers vary, anything from centimetres, up to around 70metres.... take your pick....

 

not to dive into climate change in the wrong thread but

the system does exhibit some obvious cycles
the seasons for instance, solar cycle, orbital pattern, barycentric oscillation things like that
and there are distinct patterns to be found in various records of things like temp and co2
take a look at the temp vs co2 over the last 600,000 years and tell me you dont see a pattern
the real question is the rate of change
Im going to go ahead and suggest the extinction events are caused by a deviation from the normal rate of change
basically in each of the previous extinction events it looks like some triggering event caused a rapid change in the rate of the systems typically self adjusting response
resulting in a near histemic reaction of the system ( the GIA principal )
over adjustment ( warming then cooling )
in our present case with the issue of co2 the question is
did man cause the present rise in co2
and will co2 effect temp
simple physics answers the later with a definite yes
in regards to the first all you have to do is look at the isotopic signature and the answer is a resounding yes as well ( at least among the scientists who actually study this issue, the isotopic signature of the additional co2 seems does have the fingerprint of fossil fuels )
next question is does that change represent a deviation from the normal rate of change in the system
answer is a again a resounding yes ( same disclaimer )

its not much of a leap to go from the rapid alteration of the system towards warming
to a slowing of the currents because of fresh water influx
without those currents being strong enough to maintain mixing of thermally stratified oceans
you dont get oxygen bellow the wave zone ( say the top 100 meters at best )
for whatever reason that does seem to be what caused the greatest of the extinction events
and it does appear to be happening again

the gulf stream has lost as much as 40% of its strength in the last few years
its not a consistent loss
some years are worse than others
but
its definitely weakening
thing to remember is that the British Royal Navy has been measuring ocean currents for about 500 years and basically there had been no significant change in that entire time except for the last few years
also there are some other ways to measure ocean currents from the fossil record which a few guys up at NOAA are writing papers on
( I cant wait to read some of that once it becomes available )
basically they are mapping the temp and strength of the gulf stream over a time frame of say a few million years
what I get from them so far is that the currents have been consistent over the majority of that time

what it all adds up to is were screwed and its really to late to alter the system back to were it should be
might as well mix another drink and kick back
slap a dunce cap on a few of the more die hard deniers and enjoy the show

cause all the alternative fuels in the world arent going to make one **** bit of difference at this point

but its fun to consider using em just in case

cheers
B