July 9, 2008
Oil Math
Way back in January 2007 some good folks at the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published the chart below along with an explanation that proposes a "Cubic Mile of Oil" as a new unit of measurement for the vastness of world energy consumption - along the lines of the light-year for measurement of distances in space. I find it more enlightening to use it as a measure of "alternative" energy sources:
One commercial wind turbine equals 0.000 000 61 CMOOne residential solar panel equals 0.000 000 000 22 CMO
Before you say, "Wow, a cubic mile of oil must be a tremendously vast amount" consider this:
1 cubic mile of oil would cover the entire state of Pennsylvania to a staggering depth of: 1-3/8 inches.
The truth of the matter is that oil is an incredibly high-energy fuel. One gallon of gasoline has the same energy as 63 sticks of dynamite. An average lightning bolt, comprising 500 megajoules of energy, equates to just 3.8 gallons of gasoline. (Think about that the next time you talk on your cell phone while filling your tank!)
Click "continue reading" to read the comment I posted to the IEEE article. It's still being vetted by the webmaster.
I'm a little late to this conversation (and am amazed there's only 1 comment after all this time) but Mr. Rogers' comment compels me to add one of my own.Oil and Energy Posted by JohnGalt at July 9, 2008 3:47 PMWhen I first learned of this article yesterday I found it a brilliant distillation of an immense subject - annual worldwide energy consumption - into terms that could be easily grasped and compared. A "cubic mile" of crude oil is far easier to visualize than is 26.2 billion (or is it million in the UK?) barrels.
More important is the comparision of the energy content of that fuel to various other sources. One finds that the lowly cubic mile of crude is quite potent - equalling fifty years worth of energy from a staggering collection of "alternative" energy sources.
I'll include a few more equivalents of my own:
A cubic mile of gasoline (one of the lowest energy components of crude oil) equates to 34,676 megatons of high explosive.
The largest fusion bomb ever detonated on earth (by the Soviets) was 50 megatons. A cubic mile of gasoline contains the same energy as 693.5 such bombs.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 131.76 megajoules of energy, compared to 2.1 megajoules in a stick of dynamite. 1 gallon of gas therefore equals 63 sticks of dynamite.
An average lightning bolt releases 500 megajoules, or 3.8 gallons of gasoline energy.
Crude oil truly is a "miracle fuel" and the alternative energy alchemists who try to replace it with air, sun or water will continue to require government subsidies to even begin to compete.
You make a good and important point. One of our token lefty commentators once told me that gasoline was magnitudes more efficient for transportation than feeding a cyclist.
As far as those subsidies go, I think you and I are in complete agreement. Yet, I am not nearly ready to see the free market abandon alternative fuels.
My math would be Moore's Law, and TJ Rodgers's assertion that it will apply to photovoltaics just as it applied to silicon microprocessors. If photovoltaic efficiency indeed doubles routinely over any time frame, the solar panels number will fall harmonically.
Conversely, I would guess that our capacity to extract additional energy out of oil is pretty much maxed out.
Posted by: jk at July 9, 2008 5:02 PMI'm bullish on PV electric generation too, because of their passive nature and virtually zero operating cost, but its uses are limited.
But be careful about comparing Moore's Law (which applied to integrated circuit density) to the efficiency of solar cells. The latter has a limit of 100% where the former related to size and not efficiency. While something can be miniaturized almost without limit, PV cell efficiency can only double about four times before it reaches the end of the line at 100 percent. At that point its CMO equivalent will be a whopping 0.000 000 000 88.
Whew - almost takes my breath away.
Posted by: johngalt at July 9, 2008 8:22 PMHere's some more math. One cubic mile is
1,101,117,150,000 gallons. That's over 1.1 trillion gallons.
There are 42 gallons in a standard barrel of oil. So one cubic mile of oil is 26,217,075,000 barrels.
World oil production has stagnated at 85 million barrels per *day* for the last three years (and yet there are so many idiots who think there's no supply problem!!!). At current global production levels then, it takes approximately 308.436 days to pump a cubic mile of oil.
So to replace what we could get from 308 days of global oil production, it would take 52 nuclear power plants 50 years. Or putting it another way, as much energy as 2600 nuclear power plants will produce in one year, or 3078 nuclear power plants in 308 days. To account for fluctuations, let's say 3000 nuclear power plants.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 9, 2008 10:05 PMIf we were on Kudlow, it would be time to bring out the boxing gloves animation -- looks like a ThreeSources Rumble!!!! I exaggerate. But I do disagree with two basic points:
-- jg: TJ Rodgers has put considerable money where his mouth is on PV (JG, TJ, PV, JK...) He does not see a limit and when Mister Moore was pontificating at Intel, I would expect only the wildest of futurists imagined the chip I have in my humble little $900 desktop. There is a limit to the energy in a mi3 of oil, there is not technically a limit on how much can be collected from the sun. Whether by nanotech or some yet unseen development, I think today's solar panels will be the 4MHz 286s of tomorrow.
-- Perry: You a peak oil guy? Say it isn't so. (Not the Perry I thought I --nevermind). I think the "supply" problem that you describe is a lack of will to drill by the United States, combined with a third-worldism and comfy cartelization of other suppliers. When they find a field, it always seems to produce a lot more than original guesses. New extraction technology rejuvenates legacy fields. Tar sands, anybody? I think there is sufficient oil supply.
Jonah Goldberg talks about 19th Century concerns that we were going to deforest the Continental US to power trains. We solved the urban horse manure problem and the deforestation problem (and the whale shortage) with petroleum. Do we really think nothing will come along to supersede it?
Posted by: jk at July 10, 2008 11:01 AM"This is not the Perry I knew"?
I do believe, firmly, that there's a supply problem. A severe one. And it's entirely man-made, because we're not drilling where we could. At this rate, we *will* have "peak oil," because of the tree-huggers.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 10, 2008 1:55 PMKumbaya, Brother Perry, we are on the same page after all. A self-imposed supply problem, absolutely.
Posted by: jk at July 10, 2008 5:42 PMI know I did that "Che" thing for April Fool's Day last year, but you should know me well enough by now! :)
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 11, 2008 2:27 PM | What do you think? [7]