RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark

 

 

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote

 I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only used by 
shallow people like me. 

You are an emotional child John… get over your pompous self and grow up… you 
are a little old to be acting so infantile.

 

>I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but

 

Oh yes, I knew there would be a "but".

> when big money depends on some numbers looking good

 

Or when Wikipedia is not in sync with your scientific ignorance and says 
something that you wish were not true. Apparently you believe that if you wish 
hard enough that something is not true it isn't. 

Apparently you believe anything you read on Wikipedia. It seems patently 
obvious that you lack the intellectual curiosity to do deeper research and fact 
checking when reading controversial subject matter, accepting uncritically what 
is published on a website called Wikipedia that has an open editing and comment 
process that works most of the time but has been demonstrated to be vulnerable 
to concerted efforts by small groups of very interested people. 

That you do not get – and furthermore feel driven to MOCK – this more cautious 
approach and attitude of mine vis a vis any source reputing to provide “facts”, 
“news” or “knowledge” is not something I would loudly trumpet John… think about 
it dude; you attitude is actually rather stupid.

 > Wikipedia is open to corruption

 

But only when Wikipedia says something that you wish were not true. We 
shouldn't trust Wikipedia but we should trust Chris de Morsella even when he 
has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.

 

Wrong John it is better to never blindly trust any single source. Always, 
especially for subjects over which there is much controversy and debate, for 
which the facts may not be as solid and clear as they at first seem… always 
seek other references to corroborate any facts.

That you fail to see any wisdom in this approach is rather more a marker of 
your own intellectual poverty than it is insightful on your part.

 

>You were wrong in trying to maintain that because the efficiency of a solar 
>cell is around 20% then the 80% of incident solar energy that the cell was not 
>able to capture must therefore be counted as ENERGY INVESTED.

 

OF COURSE IT'S WRONG YOU BRAINLESS TWIT, only a fool would count light that you 
didn't pay for as energy invested, but you are a fool and so you do count the 
self-energy of the kerogen,  energy that you didn't pay for, as energy invested 
when figuring out the EROI to convert kerogen to oil.  

Very amusing…. In the very same breath in which you call me a brainless twit in 
bold and all caps you go on to demonstrate your own gross misunderstanding of 
what it is EROI measures. 

First off my arrogant fellow it was you yourself Mr. John K Clark who was 
insisting that the non captured portion of incident solar irradiation should be 
counted as energy invested. It was not I who made that idiotic claim that was 
your own ignorant loud mouth that uttered that rich piece of utter ignorance.

Second, as I have patiently tried to explain to you – in the manner one uses 
with a small slow learning child – uncaptured or un-recovered portions of a 
resource have no effect one way or the other on EROI measurements – they are 
not being INVESTED into the process in order to accomplish the goal. The 
non-captured solar energy is just that – uncaptured energy, just as the remnant 
oil or gas left in a depleted field is also an un-captured resource. 

Can you follow me so far John, or is this too complicated for you?

However if a process requires an energy input in order to function – however or 
wherever that input energy is derived from – that necessary required input 
energy IS ENERGY INVESTED – in terms of how EROI defines ENERGY INVESTED.

It makes no difference whether the operator actually had to purchase the enetgy 
inputs off the market or was able to produce these energy inputs by some other 
means – they are and still remain REQUIRED NECESSARY ENERGY INPUTS 

You are trying to re-define EROI to suit your polemic position; and guess what 
John you do not get to do that. I know it sucks doesn’t it; grow up you four 
year old child.

 

So  why the inconsistency, why not use the same imbecilic method for solar 
cells that you use for kerogen? 

The inconsistency here is in your poor understanding of EROI. 

 

Could it possibly be because you like solar cells but don't like kerogen? Nah, 
I'm sure that was just a coincidence. 

Some facts: The global installed capacity for Solar PV in 2013 has reached 
around 140GW of installed producing capacity. Can you, my dear fellow for 
comparisons sake give me the 2013 global production numbers for kerogen derived 
oil? How many millions of barrels? Or is it actually exceedingly close to ZERO! 

So, yeah sure I like solar PV; I like success stories. Perhaps you have a love 
affair with kerogen, you certainly are acting like the great kerogen defender – 
it certainly cannot be because kerogen has been such a roaring success

,

> The process of producing oil (+gas) from shale rock containing kerogen 
> requires huge energy inputs in order to cook all of that rock!

 

Yes and a large part of that energy comes from the chemical energy of the 
kerogen itself that is released as heat.

 

WRONG – go try to liberate that energy potential of the kerogen in its natural 
state in the shale resource. First you need to cook the oil and gas out of the 
shale rock BEFORE it becomes available to be sold or used however the operator 
deems most profitable.

 

Of course that means that the chemical energy in a pound of kerogen is greater 
than the chemical energy in the crude oil that the pound of kerogen produced, 
and a pound of crude oil has more chemical energy than the refined  gasoline 
that came from that pound of crude oil, but given that  the law of conservation 
of energy is what it is a educated person, a smart person, and a honest person 
wouldn't expect anything else. 

 

And everything you just mentioned in the above phrase is computed into EROI 
numbers for gasoline, crude oil and all other energy systems that have had EROI 
values computed for them. That is what the EROI ratio measures – ENERGY 
INVESTED TO ENERGY YEILDED.

 

 

> EROI is ONLY measuring the ratio of the *measurable energy* inputs required 
> to produce the energy yield

 

Like the *measurable* amount of solar energy falling on a solar cell. 

 

You are denser than a rock. I have patiently gone over this with you time and 
time again John are you really so stupid? Incident un-captured energy is 
unrelated to EROI – whether or not it can be *measured* it just does not enter 
into the equation. The un-captured solar energy that is not converted into 
electricity by the solar cell is not necessary or involved in any way with that 
solar cells production or is required in order to continue production.

All – or at least the *measurable* proximate energy inputs – e.g. the sum total 
of all energy investments required to produce the solar PV unit are weighted 
against the expected lifetime energy output of that solar cell and an EROI 
ratio is derived. This is already being done genius. 

Your strange insistence that non-captured energy must be counted as energy 
invested is idiotic and betrays your fundamental lack of understanding.

 

>to the *energy value* contained in the resultant yielded product.

If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think the first 
law of thermodynamics is valid please explain how the  EROI of ANYTHING is EVER 
greater than 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption, do you believe 
the law of conservation of energy is wrong, Wikipedia says it's correct but you 
say they don't know anything. 

 

EROI definitions I will list several… because perhaps at this point a massive 
dose of repetition is in order. To hammer through the dense boney ossified 
brain matter filling your head.

A)    Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of the  
<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy> energy delivered by a process to the 
energy used directly and indirectly in that process. EROI is defined as:
 

http://a.static.trunity.net/images/116251/336x40/scale/

 

B)   The amount of energy that has to be expended in order to produce a certain 
amount of energy. 

C)  the  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio> ratio of the amount of usable  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy> energy acquired from a particular energy 
resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource.

D)  The definition of EROEI for a process of “extracting energy” is the useful 
acquired energy divided by theuseful energy expended. The “useful” tag denotes 
energy which is usable by human beings now. There are often inputs and outputs 
which could not be used for other purposes. For example, the use of “energy” by 
ancient stars generating uranium by nucleosynthesis has already occurred, so it 
makes no sense to include it in the EROEI inputs.

 

 

 I hope this multiplicity of re-confirmation of the definition of EROI will 
finally work its way past your thick skull and light at least a dim light in 
your witless brain.

>so your yadda yadda about all processes being less than thermodynamically 
>perfect is mere useless noise

Yes, just like Wikipedia physics is all yadda yadda because when big money 
depends on some numbers looking good the first and second laws of 
thermodynamics are open to corruption. But we can take solace in the fact that 
Chris de Morsella is absolutely incorruptible. 

John you really have it in for me personally don’t you. Is this what this is 
about, your petty hatred of me? Get over yourself child man.

> That would really mess up with your plans for eternal preservation. Imagine 
> that your Alzheimer riddled brain preserved forever…. An amusing thought for 
> me… so thanks for that little word trigger John.


Hmm, "An amusing thought for me", you really are a charming fellow Chris. 

And the thought still cracks me up with laughter… imagine how wrong your 
carefully laid plans could go…. You set up this one way ticket to eternity… 
then, unfortunately you do not die, but instead grow into a vegetative 
Alzheimer riddled sponge of your former pompous loud mouthed self…. And only 
then after your brain has fully and completely rotted into a plaque ridden mush 
does nature finally do the kindness of killing you off – to preserve your 
Alzheimer destroyed brain for all time. It actually cracks me up dude… nothing 
personal, I frankly don’t give a rats ass what happens to your precious brain, 
just find the thought of your so carefully laid plans going so totally haywire 
to be a source of some laughter for me. 

You've won the quadruple crown, you are sadistic, you are a scientific 
illiterate, you are dumb as dog shit, and you are a coward. Other than that 
you're a fine fellow, but I think I've had about enough of you for now,

Grow up and please stop being such a petulant loud mouthed man-child… you sound 
like you are in a grade school playground

-Chris

 John K Clark

 

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.