Talk:A Cubic Mile of Oil

Comparisons with other sources of energy
The [Reference, please?] article says the cost of a wind alternative for a cubic mile of oil is 3.3 trillion versus a nuclear cost of 13 trillion. While the cost of energy is a controversial subject, I think this set of values is well outside the bounds of reason.


 * Should we really compare the oil's heat value with electric energy like that?
 * The AP1000, which is arguably the world reference nuclear reactor right now, delivers 3415 MW thermal. Using 90% availability, you'd need 1600 such reactors to deliver the 4.454e13 kilowatt-hours for the oil. Times five billion dollars, that's 8 trillion. This means it would only take 32 years at one reactor per week. also due to economies of scale and NOAKS the cost would likely be less than $8T.
 * between the years 1973 and 1988 France built 56 reactors, i.e. 3.73 per year. during this time France had approximately 1% of the worlds population so increasing worldwide construction rate by a factor of 14 does not seem unreasonable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cravatitude (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To produce an equal amount of wind energy as a nuclear AP1000 (1154 MW) produce, at 30% availability for the wind and 90% for the nuke, you'd need 1154*0.9/0.3 = 3462 MW nameplate wind. Times 1600, as that was the number of AP1000's. At $1300/kW, that would sum up to 1600*3462e3*1300 = 7.2 trillion.
 * Also, coal and solar PV may suffer from the same problem, and as for hydro, putting high US costs for nuclear next to cheap Chinese costs for three gorges might not be very good either.

Heat versus electricity
As pointed out above the latent heat (total energy) of oil is compared to the electrical power generation of all the other sources (coal, nuclear or renewables). This comparison does not account for the inefficiencies of oil usage. Both in vehicles and power plants, oil based power is typically around 20-30% efficient (as is coal and nuclear). The comparison in this article avoids the vehicle topic (despite it being the primary use of oil), so we can just concentrate on power plants. Because such a comparison is clearly unfair to all alternatives to oil, the whole point of this article becomes (as it is now written, 2012-01-31) merely to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. When a proper comparison is completed, it would nice to see some numbers that one can use to verify things.

Power versus Energy
Comparisons to replace 1 CMO (containing a total amount of energy) are made against power generation. This is understandable if the article stated the power production needed to replace burning 1 CMO per year or per month or per decade or per 50 years (but a timeframe is needed). Right now it is totally unknown and I cannot come to any of the same numbers as is presented in the table. Again the purpose of the article is to deceive, and seems to me one of the worst articles on wikipedia.

Measuring intercontinental distances in inches
Says the article:

"The standard energy units used to measure these sources includes a variety of units (e.g., joules, BTUs, kilowatt hours, therms) only somewhat familiar to the general public[1], primarily through utility bills, and larger units, such as billion barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE) and the quad. The standard energy units are sized for everyday activities (a joule is the energy required to lift a small apple one meter vertically). Using them to measure global energy is analogous to measuring intercontinental distances in inches."

Using BTUs, therms, BBOEs & quads maybe but using exajoules would be better compared to using kilometres. Either way, though, it's just an opinion. J IM ptalk·cont 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Specifically I'm challenging the following.
 * The statement that standard energy units are only somewhat familiar to the general public.
 * The implication that the cubic mile of oil could be a more comprehensible unit.
 * The standard energy units are sized for everyday activities.
 * Number one may well be true but where's the source? Number two seems rather dubious. Number three is plain false; an exajoule, for example, is a very large unit of energy, using which to measure global energy may be analogous to measuring intercontinental distances in kilometres (or even megametres) but nothing like inches.
 * I propose to remove the paragraph in question along with whatever other unsourced opinion there may be on the page. J IM ptalk·cont 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly "Numbers of this magnitude are difficult to conceive by most educated people." is not refrenced and, whilst it may be true, we must be careful not imply that Crane's notion that replacing and unfathomably large number of familiar-sized units with a familiar-sized number of unfathomably large units aids comprehension. It may also be worth noting that whilst gallon-barrel-cubic mile conversions are rather complicated, similar conversions in the metric system are perfectly straightforward 4.8 billion litres = 4.8 thousand million cubic metres = 4.8 cubic kilometres (1 billion = 1012). Which of "4.8 billion litres", "4.8 thousand million cubic metres" or "4.8 cubic kilometres" is more comprehensible I don't know ... to me they're all about the same. J IM ptalk·cont 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Attributing a claim to a particular person is different than asserting the claim to be true. (Wikipedia has an article about the Flat Earth Society which attributes some claims that probably are not true; what matters on Wikipedia is properly reporting who claimed what. See WP:V.) As far as what aids comprehension, most people can picture what a mile looks like. It's possible to see a square mile (at least) from a tall building or an overlook atop a hill or a bluff. A cubic mile is not too much harder to picture. --Teratornis (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to clean this up so the neutrality tag can be removed. Working back from the end of this discussion to address J IM p's issues:
 * The mental picture that Teratornis describes is similar to others, for example here and here . These images give reasonable evidence that CMOs are not "unfathomably large units".
 * J IM p's "similarly" comment states that the quote "Numbers of this magnitude are difficult to conceive..." is not referenced, but in fact it is explicitly referenced to Paulos' book, the first page of which says "Innumeracy, an inability to deal comfortably with the fundamental notions of numbers and chance, plagues far too many otherwise knowledgeable citizens". In chapter 1 the section "Big Numbers, Small Probabilities" contains this quote on pg. 10 of my edition: "Many educated people have little grasp for these numbers and are even unaware that a million is 1,000,000;..." -- this sentence was the basis of my original referenced statement. I am also adding another reference to this statement in the article. I believe this addresses item #2 "The implication that the cubic mile of oil could be a more comprehensible unit.".
 * Re. Item #3: "The standard energy units are sized for everyday activities.". The early versions [] contained no mention of "larger units ... quad". I avoided this because if people "...are unaware that a million is 1,000,000...", then it seemed even less likely they would understand what an exajoule is. I have a Ph.D. in EE, but I don't know what an exajoule is (10^15? 10^18?). I would wager not one person in 100 does. Crane's idea was to find a concept the average person could grasp intuitively. Another editor added the expansion of this paragraph to include "larger units" without worrying about what that did to the rest of the paragraph. I am rewriting this paragraph and removing the reference to intercontinental distances and inches, but keeping most of the rest.
 * re. Item #1: source for "The statement that standard energy units are only somewhat familiar to the general public.". When he says, "where's the source", maybe J IM p means he doesn't like the referenced source? That source contains:
 * "Some of the many names for energy units are: erg, joule, British Thermal Unit (BTU), calorie, kilo-calorie, watt-hour, electron-volt, therm, and many more. Different industries tend to use particular units which, although they may better describe their particular product, make it very difficult for the consumer to make comparisons in choosing which energy source is the better economic choice, or to compare various alternate energy options."
 * Nevertheless, I am adding another (ironic) source for this statement.Robsavoie (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Attributing a claim to a particular person is different than asserting the claim to be true." I couldn't agree more and there's the real problem. As I read it the article does not attribute the claim to Crane (or anyone else) but asserts it. But I don't agree that "most people can picture what a mile looks like". Most Americans maybe but most people use kilometres. Of course it's not a question of whether I like the sources. It's a question of whether they are reliable and exactly whose they reflect. J IM ptalk·cont 10:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC) J IM ptalk·cont 10:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the mile is not SI and is not used by most of the world. But this is English Wikipedia, and the mile is a unit that is familiar to most English-speaking people. Do you disagree? Is your objection to the entire page, or to the first section? I'll hope it's the first section and try to address that:
 * "As I read it the article does not attribute the claim to Crane (or anyone else) but asserts it. " -- I'm not certain what "it" is here, but if you mean that the COM is an easier concept than a trillion gallons, that is explicitly stated in the article: "Crane felt that a cubic mile would be an easier concept for the general public than a trillion gallons." If you want references for that, his book will be published in the spring; in Englebart's colloquium Crane says "just happened to stumble across a new unit that we think is going to make quite a difference; a unit of measure....This new unit is like cleaning the glass and you can see... Now, the current world of energy, it's an old business. It has evolved an enormous range of units of all sorts that are used today for oil, coal and gas, plus dozens of other units....Just to keep track of the units or be able to communicate is a real chore. I won't even try to explain what some of those are. In our enterprise, we've used only one unit: the cubic mile."
 * The main objection to the intuitiveness of COM seems to come from engineers and scientists who want to use exajoules, quads, or something similar. They apparently don't agree that the scale for a problem is important for understanding by laypersons. Astronomers don't used meters to measure interstellar distances because the scale is wrong. Quick: is a star at 10^17 meters near or far? Non-technical people simply can't comprehend numbers like this. I have given several references to support this point, but I interpret your response to be that they are unreliable. Paulos is unreliable? The department of geosciences at U-Wisconsin is unreliable?
 * Your contributions to this page have significantly improved it. I made a good faith effort to address your concerns-- including removing the sentence that titles this thread -- but you are not satisfied. You proposed removing the second paragraph, but this contains the basis for Crane's original concept. Can you suggest a way to go forward? Robsavoie (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certain Paulos is reliable but is his view the general academic consensus? You mention that this is the English Wikipedia and point out that the mile is a unit familiar to most English-speaking people. Yes, well, half the English-speaking world are American, then there are the Canadians next door, the British who still use miles and in the rest of the Commonwealth older generations who still remember the imperial days. So, yes, it is familiar enough to more that half of us. But I'm not sure I follow. We're discussing the description of the unit not it's use on Wikipedia. My point is a question of how we describe it. We should not be taking sides. Crane thinks his unit is pretty good, you might agree, I might not. We don't matter here. We're not trying to prove Crane right. His opinions are his. We should describe them as such. J IM ptalk·cont 10:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source to support a claim about the "general academic consensus" (as it might apply to something in the article, such as the ability of laymen to comprehend large numbers), then add it to the article. I'd suspect most academics write for other academics, and don't write much about what the layman understands.
 * Some articles on Wikipedia have "Criticism" sections, for example when a controversial topic has been around long enough for public debate to get organized. See Creation-evolution controversy for a debate which has gone on for generations, with the result that we have many reliable sources to document the arguments of each side, as well as the counter-arguments of each side to the other side's arguments. The cubic mile of oil may be too new and too obscure to have generated many reliably-sourceable objections yet.
 * In the real world, there are probably more people making claims than people specifically objecting to other people's claims. As a result, some articles on Wikipedia may appear to be one-sided. Some readers might object to the claims attributed to someone in an article, but the only way we may object to them on Wikipedia is by citing someone else's objection through a reliable source. On Wikipedia we do not debunk someone's claims, we only report on someone else's debunking of them, if someone else (reliably) has. I routinely see things on Wikipedia that I disagree with, but without a reliable source that shares my objection, I would be doing original work if I were to write that I disagree with some claim in an article. For example, since most people believe at most one religion, most people must therefore believe most religions are bunk. But most religion articles on Wikipedia take a sympathetic view of their subjects - we don't see our Hindu contributors, for example, adding "This is all bunk" templates to articles about Christianity and Islam. The exception is where some religion has gotten involved in some notable controversy (such as Scientology versus the Internet).
 * Thus the main issue here is whether Crane has stated his views in reliable sources, and we have accurately attributed his claims to him.
 * There might be a separate issue of the article taking an American point of view to the detriment of English-speakers elsewhere, but the American bias is attributable to Crane and the article's subject. (Wikipedia has other articles about subjects with an inherent national perspective such as Miracle Mile.) If someone in another country has invented another conceptual model to convey the scale of the energy problem to the general public, the cubic mile of oil article should mention it or link to its article. David J. C. MacKay for example adopts the kilowatt hour as a universal unit of energy in his book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. MacKay uses logarithmic plots and SI prefixes to convey scale. The cubic mile of oil might be inconveniently large for his book since it focuses primarily on energy in the United Kingdom, which burns something like 2% of the world's oil production.
 * --Teratornis (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of TCF (trillion cubic feet) of natural gas in one CMO
Natural gas reserves on a national or other large scale level are often reported in TCF (Trillion Cubic Feet) in the USA.

It is useful to know how many TCF of natural gas is equivalent to a CMO to judge how large these reserves are in world terms. An exact equivalence is hard to determine because the combustion energy value of natural gas varies from 500 to 1500 BTU (British Thermal Units) per cubic foot, but 1,000 BTU per cubic foot is a rough average. (see http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JanyTran.shtml as one reference, but there are many saying the same thing if one Googles the subject)

Here's my calculation -- I post it in detail as I am not much of a arithmetician --- would someone confirm it please. The arrow symbol → means "yields." The symbol ≈ means "is approximately equal to."

1 CFT Natural Gas → 1000 BTU

1 TCF Natural Gas → 1000 Trillion BTU = 1,000,000,000,000,000 BTU

1 CMO ≈ 1.52×10 to the 17th power BTU (#*^*&*%%&$##!!! How does one do superscripts?)

1 CMO ≈ ( 1.52×10 to the 17th power BTU / 1.0 x 10 to the 15th power BTU) TCF ≈ 152 TCF.

Roughly, 150 Trillion cubic feet of gas ≈ 1 CMO

Hence to replace all the oil burned in a year (1 CMO equivalent) would take roughly 150 TCF of Natural Gas.

If this is okay, perhaps someone would like to post the last equation (leaving out the calculation) in the main article.

The reason I want to have a measure of this equivalence is that is is useful, I think, in trying to analyse the potential geopolitical effects of new gas recovery technologies (particularly hydraulic fracturing) by making more comprehensible how many newly available CMO's in the form of additional supplies of natural gas have become available.

FurnaldHall (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Per this, one TCF is roughly equivalent to one quad; the article says one CMO is equivalent to 152 quads, so your calculation looks fine. I inserted this in the equivalents section. Robsavoie (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

who on earth uses miles?
convert to normal SI units you stoneage people. Use only meters, kilometers or grams, kilograms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.14.226 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to move sections
As this article is about a unit of energy, I suggest the sections "Replacement of oil by alternative sources" and "Replacement of oil by speculative alternative sources" are moved to the article Fossil fuel phase-out. Neither of those two sections are related to information about a unit of energy. Supporting or opposing comments? -- Ws1920 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)