oil - revleft

8/10/2019 Oil - RevLeft

1/17


http://www.revleft.com/vb/oil-t190883/index.html 1/17

Blogs Groups Albums Support Us Your CP

Tweet 0

Tweet this Post! #1

RevLeft> General> Sciences and Environment

Oil

User Name User Name Remember Me?

Password Log in

Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Sciences and EnvironmentSpeculate, formulate, deliberate, and repudiate with fellow leftists on theenvironment, technology, and science, including sociology and psychology.

Forum Led by: Quail

RevLeft Shortage Alert

RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $27.50 below the monthly neededamountof $140. Help Revleft keep running - please subscribe for a monthly donation now!

View First Unread Thread Tools

18th October 2014, 05:42

I love to poop on othersCommitted User

Join Date: Apr 2012Location: SlumericaOrganisation: Militant Wing of Salvation Army, PeTAPosts: 1,627Tendency: Left CommunistsBlog Entries: 4Latest Blog Entry: Sick Sad WorldRep Power: 43Reputation: 3946

Oil

I don't think it needs to be mentioned how big if a deal this actually is. I'm sure we have allranted about this subject in regards to other relating issues but have we really sat down anddiscussed this? At least since I've been posting here I would be inclined to say no. What do I

wan to discuss? Oil. Up until now intellectually I always figured the world's addiction to thecrude stuff was silly and illogical; why put effort and invest intosomething which is finite andwe now know leads to all this pollution? Profits? Yesbut I don't think thisis entirely the caseentirely like I use to think. I've been virtually unaware of just how many products come fromoil/petroleum. Microchips in my iPhone, clown paint on my face, lots of stuff. I also didn'trealize that it use to be, an investor could pull a barrel up and such for 1$ and for this 1$investment the would be entrepreneur could gain from that 12k+ of labor man-power hours. Itdoes seem to be some liquid if you think about because if you follow this line of thinking, forthe first time in history, we achieved free energy.

Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this habit?Say "smash capitalism" and I'll smash your face cuz that's obvious and not helpful. According

to Herbert's peak, we need to figure out something soon. What do you guys think of theDevil's piss?__________________Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play,here in my garden of magic.

"As for politics I'm an Anarchist. I hate governments and rules and fetters. Can't stand caged animals. People must be

0Like
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/group.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/album.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/payments.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/usercp.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/group.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/album.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/payments.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/usercp.phphttp://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revleft.com%2Fvb%2Foil-t190883%2Findex.htmlhttps://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revleft.com%2Fvb%2Foil-t190883%2Findex.html&text=Oil%20-%20RevLeft%3A&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revleft.com%2Fvb%2Foil-t190883%2Findex.html%23.VFgjFPJFjWM.twitterhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/usercp.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/payments.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/album.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/group.phphttp://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php


2/17



Tweet this Post! #2

Tweet this Post! #3

Tweet this Post! #4

free."-Charlie Chaplin.

"I love to gargle poop in my mouth and kiss girls."-Rosa Luxemberg, Speech to the Nuremberg Congress of the GermanSocial Democratic Party, 1908

18th October 2014, 05:57

rednoisePareconish Marxist

Join Date: Aug 2013

Posts: 709Tendency: Marxist-Humanist InitiativeRep Power: 12Reputation: 1062

Sash camptialism.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rednoise For This Useful Post:

&, Illegalitarian, Mistress Sinistra, Skinz

18th October 2014, 06:19

IllegalitarianSENIOR MOST REVOLUTIONARY

Join Date: Feb 2013Posts: 463Tendency: Revolutionary MarxistsRep Power: 5Reputation: 335

Quote:

Originally Posted by rednoiseSash camptialism.

I mean I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but this is pretty true.

Oil already has a monopoly over the earth wrt energy and is already lining the pockets ofenergy barons, what's the financial incentive to go off experimenting with this and that?

Take away the incentive: smash capitalism

18th October 2014, 06:58



Quote:


3/17



Tweet this Post! #5

Originally Posted by IllegalitarianI mean I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but this is pretty true.

Oil already has a monopoly over the earth wrt energy and is already lining thepockets of energy barons, what's the financial incentive to go off experimenting withthis and that?

Take away the incentive: smash capitalism

Yeah I know but I want more something substantive. Cuz I mean, I can campaign and railagainst fracking and oil and such and advocate for it's abandonment but then that would leadto the inevitable, and then what? Considering again, just how many commodities and so onare connected oil, petroleum and so on.

here is a link to a wiki article about the theory I mentioned in the OP, it's actually calledHubbert's peak theory__________________Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play,here in my garden of magic.

"As for politics I'm an Anarchist. I hate governments and rules and fetters. Can't stand caged animals. People must befree."-Charlie Chaplin.


18th October 2014, 08:36

Loony Le FistLibsoc Wackadoo

Join Date: Oct 2013Location: USAPosts: 701Latest Blog Entry: How do we overcome the intellectual distortions of neoliberalism?

Rep Power: 12Reputation: 1030

Quote:

Originally Posted by ...Up until now intellectually I always figured the world's addiction to the crude stuff wassilly and illogical; why put effort and invest into something which is finite and we now

know leads to all this pollution? Profits? Yes but I don't think this is entirely the caseentirely like I use to think. I've been virtually unaware of just how manyproducts come from oil/petroleum.Microchips in my iPhone, clown paint on myface, lots of stuff. I also didn't realize that it use to be, an investor could pull a barrelup and such for 1$ and for this 1$ investment the would be entrepreneur could gainfrom that 12k+ of labor man-power hours...

This is such a great topic. Petrochemicals form the basis of an advanced society withchemistry involving plastics, fuels, additives, soaps, detergents, solvents, lubricants anddrugs. This is a huge problem. Workflows for synthesizing the basic precursors from non-petrochemical sources are very much undeveloped. This problem seems undiscussed in nearly

all the media I have consumed on petroleum dependence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this


4/17



Tweet this Post! #6

habit? Say "smash capitalism" and I'll smash your face cuz that's obvious and nothelpful. According to Herbert's peak, we need to figure out something soon.

Firstly, we must act decisively and rapidly to develop alternative chemical synthesis pathwaysto sufficient economy of scale from non-petrochemical sources. Secondly, the efficiency andubiquitousness of alternative energy systems and power plants must allow for self-sufficiency.Thirdly, after building this infrastructure begin transitioning all industries to use electricpower. Large scale rail electrification provides a pathway to work out the task of providing a

charging system infrastructure for vehicles and high speed rail transportation.

Switching to safer nuclear fission reactor designs like those for Thorium rather than Uranium,using molten salts or low melting point metals as coolants, and improved safety immenselyreduce the chance of meltdowns and the damage they can do. Thorium reactor designs areinherently safer because they meltdown in a much more controlled way. It gives operatorstime to safely fix the problem and replace the reactor module as a unit.

The question will always be whenthe transition to alternative fuels and chemical sources willtake place, not if. Physics will force us to eventually. The question is do you want to beheating your food with a wood stove or an induction heating electric range? But what goodwould electricity be without the synthetic plastic insulation on the wires, currently made from

petrochemicals? I think materials aspect might even be the most critical part of a transitionaway from a petroleum based economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by What do you guys think of the Devil's piss?

I've heard it's a rather strong drink.__________________I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I alwaysexpect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.

--rms

While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrictits users.--rms

AKA loonyleftist

The Following User Says Thank You to Loony Le Fist For This Useful Post:

18th October 2014, 09:37

Campesin@ FuerteRevolutionary Cumbiaist

Join Date: Oct 2013Location: USAPosts: 345Tendency: InsurrectionistsRep Power: 6Reputation: 464

They have alternatives. Those greedy fucks just don't want to fork them over till they havetoo. I'm not sure if I'll be able to stop them in time (or any of us lol), so we may have to see

what happens when the resources are exhausted. If not, we switch over to energy likegeothermal, and dedicate what's left for commodity production.Once again, for car sake. I hope the solar panels from Looper come out soon.__________________Because the world needs music!Porque el mundo necesita musica!


5/17



Tweet this Post! #7

Tweet this Post! #8

- MAS-MAS-MASTER

The Following User Says Thank You to Campesin@ Fuerte For This Useful Post:

Loony Le Fist

18th October 2014, 11:51

Palmares


6/17



Tweet this Post! #9

Tweet this Post! #10

Tim CornelisGRAMMAR CHEKACommitted User

Join Date: May 2011Location: NetherlandsOrganisation: Breakthrough/Doorbraak; Communist Platform - CompasPosts: 3,462Tendency: LuxemburgistsBlog Entries: 3Latest Blog Entry: IdeologiesRep Power: 84Reputation: 7704

Aren't there renewable alternatives from plants? The objection to this was, iirc, that it takesup a lot of land, away from food production. Vertical agriculture is the solution there.__________________"Sweet potato tastes good; I like it"-- Mao Tse-Tung

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tim Cornelis For This Useful Post:

Loony Le Fist, , PhoenixAsh, Skinz

18th October 2014, 13:59

SkinzGive me Slack or KILL ME!Committed User

Join Date: Jun 2005Posts: 1,982Rep Power: 26Reputation: 1507

Quote:

Originally Posted by Campesin@ FuerteI'm not sure if I'll be able to stop them in time (or any of us lol), so we may have tosee what happens when the resources are exhausted.

Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide, water,sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8217382.html

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Skinz For This Useful Post:

Campesin@ Fuerte, Loony Le Fist

18th October 2014, 15:09



Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinz


7/17




Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide,water, sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8217382.html

That's interesting and while we may be able to do that; what we can't do is use or extract saidoily goodness if we've already turned the planet into a microwave and as a species are morecrispy than the burrito I just burnt.

__________________Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play,here in my garden of magic.



18th October 2014, 15:20



Quote:

Originally Posted by Loony Le FistThis is such a great topic. Petrochemicals form the basis of an advanced society withchemistry involving plastics, fuels, additives, soaps, detergents, solvents, lubricantsand drugs. This is a huge problem. Workflows for synthesizing the basic precursorsfrom non-petrochemical sources are very much undeveloped. This problem seemsundiscussed in nearly all the media I have consumed on petroleum dependence.

Firstly, we must act decisively and rapidly to develop alternative chemical synthesispathways to sufficient economy of scale from non-petrochemical sources. Secondly,the efficiency and ubiquitousness of alternative energy systems and power plants

must allow for self-sufficiency. Thirdly, after building this infrastructure begintransitioning all industries to use electric power. Large scale rail electrificationprovides a pathway to work out the task of providing a charging system infrastructurefor vehicles and high speed rail transportation.

Switching to safer nuclear fission reactor designs like those for Thorium rather thanUranium, using molten salts or low melting point metals as coolants, and improvedsafety immensely reduce the chance of meltdowns and the damage they can do.Thorium reactor designs are inherently safer because they meltdown in a much morecontrolled way. It gives operators time to safely fix the problem and replace thereactor module as a unit.

The question will always be whenthe transition to alternative fuels and chemicalsources will take place, not if. Physics will force us to eventually. The question is doyou want to be heating your food with a wood stove or an induction heating electricrange? But what good would electricity be without the synthetic plastic insulation onthe wires, currently made from petrochemicals? I think materials aspect might even


8/17





be the most critical part of a transition away from a petroleum based economy.

I've heard it's a rather strong drink.

Thank you for this, I need to do more research on some things real quick but this is what Iwas getting at in terms of the actual logistics of said hypothetical (albeit inevitable) transition.

To be honest, I don't even think it's a matter of providing an alternativemore somethingcompletely innovative, different, refined and advanced. Like for example with the electricrace, we now know that Edison's shit was dangerous, largely inefficient and so on comparedto the brilliance of Tesla (who's ideas are seemingly becoming more recognized today).

I mean, to me, even as stupid as I am, I feel like there already has to be a means of bothproducing commodities in a more ecofriendly manner and for obtaining 'free energy' orenergy with low residual investment needs. This goes along with why I believe green energygeneration and supply technology has took recently due to reaching a point where it's lesscostly and more productive.

Cuz I mean, in the states, it's been observed in local areas in my commonwealth and other

states that volatile chemicals contained with 'treated' water or water exposed topetrochemicals, where they can light their water on fire and other shit. Here in the city too,water is being affected and in poor boros like McKeesport, all of Northside, Clairton and otherswhere you know straight up not to drink the water or you could get sick.

Anyway, explain to me difference between the theory I posted and the other one, please andthank you.

Edit: just realized that was Palmeras but yes.__________________Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play,here in my garden of magic.



18th October 2014, 15:24

Skinz

Give me Slack or KILL ME!Committed User

Join Date: Jun 2005Posts: 1,982Rep Power: 26

Reputation: 1507

Quote:

Originally Posted by That's interesting and while we may be able to do that; what we can't do is use orextract said oily goodness if we've already turned the planet into a microwave and asa species are more crispy than the burrito I just burnt.

Well, that's a different issue. The fact is, petroleum will only "run out" when we want it too.

18th October 2014, 15:35


9/17






Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinzWell, that's a different issue. The fact is, petroleum will only "run out" when we wantit too.

Let's assume, with the article you posted, they've already reached the level of onecommercial facility able to produce 1 ton of oil per blah blah. Let's also assume that currentsocio-political or material conditions are also still in play. With the competition for self-sufficiency and more, attempts at state monopoly, how could this be a reasonable option on aglobal scale? We need carbon dioxide (to a small degree) in the air. If we didn't have this,plants and this we, wouldn't be able to breathe. This to me, in an abstract way, is like a usersaying they're trying to quit but if you just let em do a rinse, they'll be alright or some boozersaying it's just one glass if wine for the heart. It's bullshit.__________________Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play,here in my garden of magic.



18th October 2014, 15:39



Quote:

Originally Posted by Let's assume, with the article you posted, they've already reached the level of onecommercial facility able to produce 1 ton of oil per blah blah. Let's also assume thatcurrent socio-political or material conditions are also still in play. With the competitionfor self-sufficiency and more, attempts at state monopoly, how could this be areasonable option on a global scale? We need carbon dioxide (to a small degree) inthe air. If we didn't have this, plants and this we, wouldn't be able to breathe.

We have more carbon dioxide than we strictly need, we are pumping tonnes of additional

carbon into the atmosphere with every passing year. Isn't this the crux of the problem inregards to anthropogenic climate change? I don't think that sucking all the carbon dioxide outof the atmosphere is a reasonable fear to currently hold.

Quote:


10/17




Originally Posted by This to me, in an abstract way, is like a user saying they're trying to quit but if you

just let em do a rinse, they'll be alright or some boozer saying it's just one glass ifwine for the heart. It's bullshit.

Except that trying to draw meaningful similarities between an individual with a substanceabuse problems and societies use of resources is incredibly simplistic at best and moronicbullshit at worst.

The Following User Says Thank You to Skinz For This Useful Post:

18th October 2014, 17:12


Join Date: Apr 2012Location: SlumericaOrganisation: Militant Wing of Salvation Army, PeTAPosts: 1,627Tendency: Left Communists

Blog Entries: 4Latest Blog Entry: Sick Sad WorldRep Power: 43Reputation: 3946

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinzWe have more carbon dioxide than we strictly need, we are pumping tonnes ofadditional carbon into the atmosphere with every passing year. Isn't this the crux ofthe problem in regards to anthropogenic climate change? I don't think that sucking all

the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a reasonable fear to currently hold.

Perhaps not but then again, considering the collective compulsion to over-consume andproduce should be noted.

Quote:

Except that trying to draw meaningful similarities between an individual with asubstance abuse problems and societies use of resources is incredibly simplistic atbest and moronic bullshit at worst.

How? You call me stupid all the time, elaborate me hearty. If you please because while, yes,it's totally simplistic, I think it's useful in illustrating the insanity of the whole thing. It's thefiend mentality. Let's do everything and everything to try to keep doing what we're doing evenif we recognize it's no good instead of trying something different. It's only until the choice totry something different is made, that clarity, understanding and progress occur. Same couldbe said of whole societies, no? I mean, does it not seem like a never ending cycle? Let's cleante air to make oil to pollute to clean the air again to make oil to pollute ad nauseum.

I don't see what's moronic about drawing comparisons how people treat oil and how they treattheir drug of choice or their personal god and so on.__________________

Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play,here in my garden of magic.




11/17



Tweet this Post! #1618th October 2014, 17:53

Palmares


12/17



Methanol, as an alcohol, increases the permeability of some plastics to fuelvapors (e.g. high-density polyethylene).[13] This property of methanol has thepossibility of increasing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) fromfuel, which contributes to increased tropospheric ozone and possibly humanexposure.Low volatility in cold weather: pure methanol-fueled engines can be difficult tostart, and they run inefficiently until warmed up. This is why a mixturecontaining 85% methanol and 15% gasoline called M85 is generally used in ICEs.The gasoline allows the engine to start even at lower temperatures.

Methanol is generally considered toxic.[14] Methanol is in fact toxic andeventually lethal when ingested in larger amounts (30 to 100 mL).[15] But soare most motor fuels, including gasoline (120 to 300 mL) and diesel fuel.Gasoline also contains many compounds known to be carcinogenic (e.g.benzene). Methanol is not a carcinogen, nor does it contain any carcinogens.However, methanol may be metabolized in the body to formaldehyde, which isboth toxic and carcinogenic.[16] Methanol occurs naturally in small quantities inthe human body and in edible fruits.Methanol is a liquid: this creates a greater fire risk compared to hydrogen inopen spaces. Methanol leaks do not dissipate. A methanol-based fire burnsinvisibly unlike gasoline. Compared to gasoline, however, methanol is much

safer. It is more difficult to ignite and releases less heat when it burns.Methanol fires can be extinguished with plain water, whereas gasoline floats onwater and continues to burn. The EPA has estimated that switching fuels fromgasoline to methanol would reduce the incidence of fuel related fires by 90%.[17]Methanol accidentally released from leaking underground fuel storage tanks mayundergo relatively rapid groundwater transport and contaminate well water,although this risk has not been thoroughly studied. The history of the fueladditive methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE) as a groundwater contaminant hashighlighted the importance of assessing the potential impacts of fuel and fueladditives on multiple environmental media.[18] An accidental release ofmethanol in the environment would, however, cause much less damage than a

comparable gasoline or crude oil spill. Unlike these fuels, methanol, beingtotally soluble in water, would be rapidly diluted to a concentration low enoughfor microorganism to start biodegradation. Methanol is in fact used fordenitrification in water treatment plant as a nutrient for bacteria.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methano..._disadvantages

Maybe they'll find a way to mediate this... But miracle cures pop up all the time, but I'm stillwaiting for them to deliver. Until then, I'm still cynical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edit: just realized that was Palmeras but yes.

Wait, what about me?__________________[formerlyCthenthar]

Revolutionaries don't spend all day on a messageboard. Action is realisation of the polemic.

"When the lie returns to the mouth of the powerful, our voice of fire will speak again." - quote EZLN

Development develops inequality. Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of aContinent

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Palmares For This Useful Post:


13/17





bcbm, Loony Le Fist

18th October 2014, 18:21

Manoir de mes revesfka AugustWestCommitted UserGlobal Moderator

Join Date: Aug 2005Organisation: IWWPosts: 5,852Tendency: Respectful Discussion ActivistsRep Power: hiddenReputation: hidden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah I know but I want more something substantive. Cuz I mean, I can campaign andrail against fracking and oil and such and advocate for it's abandonment but then thatwould lead to the inevitable, and then what? Considering again, just how manycommodities and so on are connected oil, petroleum and so on.

here is a link to a wiki article about the theory I mentioned in the OP, it's actually

called Hubbert's peak theory

I'm familiar with Hubbert's theory, but I think you've answered your own question. You cancampaign for X, Y, and Z, but then comes the inevitable "then what?" This goes for 'solving'the crisis of peak oil as well - new products will bring with them the same logic which guidesall production under capitalism. The root - this logic - will not change. So you will find yourselfin crisis after crisis: oil, then bees, then radioactivity, then whatever, and you will always betrying to find something "substantive" to change.

The real substance is the logic of capitalism. The real substantive change is the change whichoccurs not when you, one person, act for change, but when we, as a class, bring into life a

new logic based around our interests (and hence the interests of the planet/species).__________________

- Industrial Workers Of The World - A Union For All Workers -

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manoir de mes reves For This Useful Post:

&, Loony Le Fist

Yesterday, 14:33



Quote:

Originally Posted by Perhaps not but then again, considering the collective compulsion to over-consumeand produce should be noted.

For what reason?

Quote:


14/17




Originally Posted by How? You call me stupid all the time, elaborate me hearty. If you please becausewhile, yes, it's totally simplistic, I think it's useful in illustrating the insanity of thewhole thing. It's the fiend mentality. Let's do everything and everything to try to keepdoing what we're doing even if we recognize it's no good instead of trying somethingdifferent. It's only until the choice to try something different is made, that clarity,understanding and progress occur. Same could be said of whole societies, no? I mean,does it not seem like a never ending cycle? Let's clean te air to make oil to pollute toclean the air again to make oil to pollute ad nauseum.

I don't see what's moronic about drawing comparisons how people treat oil and howthey treat their drug of choice or their personal god and so on.

Comparing drug or alcohol abuse with societies use of resources is stupid because it doesn'thelp us understand anything, it's just alarmist rhetoric.

Oil isn't something that we simply need to stop using a la an alcoholics use of alcohol, as youpoint out in the OP oil is something that makes modern life possible and as such oil is aresource that we need to learn to manage intelligently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmaresI think this is interesting, but I think getting stuck in finding saviours is dangerous. Ofcourse there's potential, but we can't depend on wishful hope.

I'm not looking for a saviour, I'm pointing out that petroleum isn't going anywhere soonbecause if we can find it in nature then humans will inevitably find a way to synthesise it orfind another material which can do the job but better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmaresThere is already (founded in 2006) a company creating fuel from carbon dioxide,called Carbon Recycling International, in Reykjavik, Iceland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_..._International

They are, as of yet, to produce a profit. They have, nonetheless, began operating asmall methanol producing plant near the Blue Lagoon in Reykjavik. The advantage thisIcelandic company have compared to the scientists in the article is that they'vealready had serious investment, and they can source higher concentrations of CO2from close by geothermal power plants. Apparently they can get their hands on

cheaper electricity as well.

However, the great energy needs it requires, and the very little energy it produces,equates to a negative energy output. Exceedingly so, unless other alternative energysources are utilised. Not to mention that it (methanol) can't be used by currentvehicles, and infact needs to be blended with existing fuels: only low-volatility petrol.Which is more expensive than high-volatility, and the blending itself is expensive.Amongst other costs. So at this time, it's both inefficient, and expensive, to say theleast.

That's all interesting but I wasn't presenting it as an a way of producing power (there are

better, more efficient ways of making electricity after all) I'm interested in it as a way to stillmake petroleum once we inevitably run out of our "natural" oil reserves.

Yesterday, 15:27


15/17




Palmares


16/17




Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmaresSounds like wishful thinking to me. Hence, "saviour".

But indeed, petroleum isn't running out tomorrow. The race for energy resourcescontinues, whether in the Arctic North, Antarctica, or even asteroids apparently...

However, that simply extends the time frame we are looking at, it doesn't avert it.

There's nothing wishful about it. Petroleum isn't running out until we run out the the elementsneeded to create it or until we find something that can replace it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmaresYou have missed the point big time. Where did I say I was talking about specificallyproducing electricity? The global energy crisis is not a singularity, not about simplyone source of energy. And of course energy comes in many forms, whether as fuel(for example, in vehicles), or as electricity. Hence, like I said before, RichardHeinberg not using the termpeak oil, but ratherpeak everything. I was presenting theproblems with carbon recycling. For example, if you look at the overall energyarithmetic, more energy (not just electricity!) is required currently to produce theenergy it creates. That is a negative energy output. Everything has what is called

embodied energy, which is the amount of energy required to produce a given item. Inthe past, alot more of our energy sources had a positive energy output, which oftenrelated to the easier extraction of the given energy source at the time. But many ofthese sources have been exhausted, or are running low compared to demand, so nowmore difficult sources are being used. Like the Tar Sands, which is a very energyexhaustive venture. Whether it's the petroleum used, the electricity, the water, youname it.

Possibly, I've got to say I was a bit confused as to why you were bringing up profitability, butI can see what you are saying now.

Is producing energy efficiently really a problem? I can think of various sources of energy thatcould easily make up for the negative energy output that would be caused from producingyour own petroleum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmaresBasically, if we are to get anywhere, we need to be energy efficient, which would looklike positive energy outputs.

Who's saying any different?

Tags


17/17


oil

Previous Thread | Next Thread

Posting Rules

You may notpost new threadsYou may notpost repliesYou may notpost attachments

You may notedit your posts

BB code is OnSmilies are On[IMG] code is OnHTML code is Off

Forum RulesForum Jump

Sciences and Environment Go

All times are GMT. The time now is 00:51.

-- RevLeft Contact Us - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7Copyright 2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
http://-/?-

oil - revleft

Documents