Favorable Renewable Energy

[stephen]

The renewable energy has become popular in recent times, owing to the fuel price rises and the increasing energy demand. Although the renewable energy demand has increased, the need for finding the right form of energy is important. Different users have different needs. The world energy research helps such users to make decisions regarding the choice of the type of renewable energy.

The energy usage of the world has risen by 500% which indicates the existence of a strong energy market. The renewable energy has become a favored option by many, especially the environmentalists. The energy does not create air and land pollution as it does not emit gases on combustion. This is unlike fossil fuels that produce harmful gases on combustion.

[mR_r0b0to]

look at dat bot

[rossmum]

no let's turn this into a legit thread, i'll start

ethanol is probably the most convenient and also best-developed of clean fuels (theoretically) but even it's a ways off. it's less potent than octane (petrol) so you need more to do the same work, but on top of that you also need a way of extracting said ethanol from plant waste and currently that involves power provided by burning fossil fuels or nuclear energy (thus making it not actually 'clean' yet). also you'd need to modify engines to run off amounts over 10-15% (somewhere in that ballpark, i'm hazy on the details) ethanol, which is why there was a huge fuckfight here about independent petrol stations putting too much into their fuel. things like fully-electric cars or hydrogen fuel cells are neat and do work currently but they're also pretty pricey and, in the case of the former, inconvenient as fuck vs. traditional fossil fuels. in all honesty i think those won't start to come into their own for a long time, or at least not enough to compete with traditional power.

cleaning up electricity production would be a lot fucking easier if the general public, being the retards that they are, didn't have such an all-encompassing irrational fear of nuclear power, but until that happens wind, solar, thermal, tidal and hydro-electric will remain sideshows to coal and oil. they're neat and they do work, but they have special requirements of their own and in the case of hydro they have a huge environmental impact as well. the main problem is cleaning up transportation, because you can't exactly sell nuclear-powered cars to the same people who are scared shitless of isolated power plants let alone anything else.

[sleepy1212]

Ethanol sucks balls because agro-bis (at least in the states) has pretty much lobbied it into a corn monopoly. That ruins it because these same people already have corn in everything (i mean literally everything from food to everyday items). They've also managed to make it the only food source for livestock, which is why free-range is so hip with the environmentalists. While america actually makes enough corn to support itself, free trade bs and backward international deals actually make it so we have to import. It would take all of America's cropland to fuel just the cars...which is idiotic anyway because manufacturing a car actually has a bigger carbon footprint than driving one (Prius anyone?). That means no corn leftover to make fuckall out of everything.

cleaning up electricity is a great idea and i don't mean "clean coal" and hydroelectric. If the grids were refurbished, rerouted, and managed by up-to-date systems we could drastically cut energy costs and waste.

The big fucker-upper of clean and efficient energy is the marriage between government and corporations (and other lobbyists e.g., Sierra Club). It goes from one end of the spectrum to the other. On one hand you have big businesses grabbing up the market and holding off until people are desperate and the price can be astronomical. This grants them not only profit, but power, which is why our government is all too willing to help. On the other hand you have environmentalists who impede the building of solar collectors, wind mills, wave generators, nuclear plants, and new efficient refineries, pipelines, mines, and drilling platforms. Everytime these people get involved, guess what happens: new legislation, someone gets to write a bill, steal more land (making it federal), creation of regulatory powers, etc...more control, more power.

Even without the businesses and the hippies government regulation has it's own strangle-hold on progress.I work closely with local, state, and federal guidelines in municipal projects on a daily basis. The cost and time lost on permitting and licensing, and all the other BS red tape is an extreme burden on funding and deadlines. I could only imagine the nightmare that would accompany say, a nuclear power plant.

[Dwood]

The cost of the people fighting the plants are more than the costs of the building and running them. Let's leave it at that with the nuclear.

[Warsaw]

Fuck ethanol. Fuck electric. Neither of them are particularly clean or appealing solutions. How about we use 70-90% hydrogen peroxide solutions as fuel? Squeeze them through a catalytic chamber and you get steam. That steam can drive a piston engine or a turbine with only oxygen as a byproduct along with the inherent water vapour. Alternatively, you can have the catalytic chambers submerged in a tank of water. Since 90% H2O2 reaches about 800 degrees Celsius, it will boil the water in the tank, forming extra steam. It would cycle through a condenser and get dumped back into the tank. Since we'd have more steam than that tank can hold, the excess would get vented off or used to run a turbo or something.

Idea (C) Me, 2009.

[CN3089]

What, for cars? Just build electric cars. Shift the worry to the power plants.

[Rob Oplawar]

I wrote a super longpost, but then I decided to trim it down to just a longpost:

Look, it's super cliche or hippie communist or what have you, but the truth of the matter is that our society (western, not just America) is woefully wasteful. The problem is that we treat energy (and water and land and food) like they are much cheaper and more abundant than they really are. It's not that everybody should stop driving cars and watching TV right now. It's that driving cars and watching TV are perceived as too cheap; stores use insane amounts of energy because they have enough money to use it. I'm all for capitalism and against government prohibition or overzealous regulation, but the way I see it, what we have is not a free energy market; it is artificially inflated. We get super cheap electricity because we can grab coal and oil straight out of the ground. In a timespan of a few tens of years, the supply is large, the demand small, and so the price cheap. But looking ahead just a hundred years, the demand is massive, the supply miniscule, and the associated costs (environmental) pretty obvious.

I think the best thing we could possibly do for renewable energy and environmental concerns is to make the monetary cost of an energy source more accurately reflect its long-term sociological, economic, and environmental cost. California already kind of does it with gasoline, taxing the hell out of it and using the money gained from those taxes to support alternative fuels. Of course, this is both terrible for the economy and really fucking annoying- we like our conveniences, and it sucks to be forced to cut back because somebody else made it more expensive than it could be.

Plus, not to go all Michael Moore on you, but it's really true that corporations make this really hard to accomplish. The more we raise prices and regulate, the harder it is for them to sell and the less they sell the less money they make. There's nothing evil or conspiratorial about the fact that businesses want to maximize their profits. The debate is whether it is a bad thing for the government to hurt them for the greater good. From a philosophical/sociological standpoint western society is much less open to the idea of "the greater good over the individual" than eastern. For us, the individual is most important; we want fairness and justice. And so people tend to be of the opinion that the more government regulates businesses (except where absolutely necessary) the worse off we are.

e: also, lobbyists. Fucking goddamn lobbyists. Here's what I really think is wrong with our capitalism: the relationship of money and politics. Money can drive our economy and our businesses and everything else. But what we need more than separation of church and state is separation of state and money. Seriously. Money speaks louder than people; 10% of our population has 90% of the value by that measure. That's not how democratic government is supposed to work. People > money.

[paladin]

Oil

[rossmum]

post
Brazil actually used partial-ethanol fuels for something like a decade before the project was abandoned, as well as converted vehicles that ran solely off of it. It did work quite well at that end, but when it came to actually extracting the ethanol, it was little cleaner than anything else thanks to the production processes running off of fossil fuels. It wasn't really economically viable, either; octane was still cheaper. I should also note that Brazil had a fuckload of crops suitable for ethanol production, whereas quite a lot of countries don't.

When it comes to the power grid, another big thing is actually enhancing transmission itself. You might still have a dirty coal plant, but that dirty coal plant can now provide for as many homes and businesses as five dirty coal plants normally could. Superconductors are coming along pretty well, but it won't really be all that useful until they can figure out something that superconducts at room or outside temperatures. Once that hurdle is cleared, and as long as costs are reasonable, replacing even relatively small sections of line will drastically reduce line loss, therefore reducing the output required to get the same amount of power through to the same amount of customers. If a whole grid could be upgraded to superconduct, you'd have that many superfluous powerstations that it might actually cause a serious problem in terms of lost jobs. Still, it's something to look out for and it's a way of cutting pollution without having to migrate to other power sources.

Until there's a viable form of clean power generation, I'd be happy to see more countries adopt nuclear power. Australia needs to, for a start - we're sitting on all that uranium, and the only use we have for it is at Lucas Heights. The only nuclear reactor of any sort in the entire country isn't even for large-scale power generation, it's a medical reactor.

[Cojafoji]

shift from high fructose corn syrup to real sugar makes ethanol a viable option.

[CN3089]

or just stop eating so god damn much :ugh:

[Dwood]

OR get big corn companies out of the government. :downs:

[Llama Juice]

The funny thing about the whole ethanol thing, (where there's 10% ethanol in fuel nowadays) is that most cars that people are driving aren't designed to run off of that. Even that amount of ethanol degrades stuff in the engine quicker, and ends up forcing you to replace parts on your car because you're feeding your car the wrong food.

My dad owns two NAPA auto part stores, and I used to work at a gas station. We were the only gas station in town that still didn't put ethanol in our fuel, but we had to still keep our prices competitive which ended up making us only get 1 or 2 cents per gallon sold (as profit)... which then you lose that profit if the customer uses a credit card and you end up coming out with a loss just for selling fuel.

I mention that my father owns two NAPA stores because when this whole shift came about sales in fuel filters went WWWAAYYYY up because again, they were filtering a different substance than what they were designed to filter.... and this is just looking at it's impact on the consumer's cars.... this isn't even touching on if you put fuel with ethanol in it into a boat, ATV, or lawnmower.

The reason why I bring all this up is because the consumer doesn't know about all of this. They see the "Oh there's ethanol in it, I lose maybe 1-2 miles per gallon... but it's cleaner so I save the earth!" when... it's really just so that the oil companies can cash in with bigger profits.... and from what I understand it doesn't really run any cleaner.

The big issue is just how much power big oil has, and how much they control.... it's just like whenever a viable solution to the energy problem with vehicles comes along... big oil buys up the idea and then doesn't continue producing it.

[sleepy1212]

I could be wrong but i was under the impression it was Big Oil vs Big Corn. Where the oil companies have lobbied laws in place that limit the production of alternative fuel sources in their markets. Kind of the same stupid rules that made all other fast food companies wait 10 years to open a "Dollar Menu" after Wendy's did it.

but yea, former Big Corn exects now head the FDA, Department of Agriculture, and various other domestic agencies. Big Oil is the same. I don't think it needs to be spelled out...what it means...


When it comes to the power grid, another big thing is actually enhancing transmission itself. You might still have a dirty coal plant, but that dirty coal plant can now provide for as many homes and businesses as five dirty coal plants normally could. Superconductors are coming along pretty well, but it won't really be all that useful until they can figure out something that superconducts at room or outside temperatures. Once that hurdle is cleared, and as long as costs are reasonable, replacing even relatively small sections of line will drastically reduce line loss, therefore reducing the output required to get the same amount of power through to the same amount of customers. If a whole grid could be upgraded to superconduct, you'd have that many superfluous powerstations that it might actually cause a serious problem in terms of lost jobs. Still, it's something to look out for and it's a way of cutting pollution without having to migrate to other power sources..

Yes. Additionally, rerouting the lines. Many were setup haphazardly following new construction as it went along. Replacing old line and shortening extraneous sections would improve transmission.

Many of the powerstations are understaffed but i wouldn't worry about people losing jobs. Many more would be needed to build, refit and refurbish, run, and train people to run new systems.

[paladin]

Oil companies own all the patents for alternative fuel sources, most notably hydrogen fuel cell. That called controlling the market.

[rossmum]

See that's why our current form of capitalism blows. Basically, the only people who can make any kind of progress will either exploit the shit out of it, or won't do it to protect their profits.

[paladin]

They're protecting their investment.

[rossmum]

Because they're greedy fucks, like the overwhelming majority of our species. There's a surprise.

[paladin]

Anyone in their position would do the same.

[CN3089]

Except people who aren't greedy and evil :)

[sleepy1212]

Except people who aren't greedy and evil :)

:not holding my breath: :allears:


We're not talking pure capitalism here, government is helping the greed by enforcing regulations that support it - denying a free market to competitors. In fact, with exception to internal R&D, the companies wouldn't have any power over the development of new markets.

It basically goes like this:

Big Oil: ok we'll let you tax the fuck out of oil if you make it illegal or nearly impossible to develop commercially viable alternatives.

Big Government: 32 cents on the dollar? You got a deal!

[Mass]

The thing we should be doing right now, if we actually gave a shit (in the United States,) is to break the energy monopolies and cut growth in coal burning by utilizing waste heat from power-plants and other industry, we would have more energy without polluting any more than we already do. That is something that might be pushable, but could only work with more effective heat to electric energy conversion currently in development. As far as cars go, I figure we'll probably be waiting until someone invents a more efficient or mobile form of battery, because if we shift our energy generation largely to plants, it's much easier to use the clean(er) forms of energy which we have discovered so far. However, I think there is ultimately little chance that corporate interests will allow us to act in time.

[Disaster]

As far as cars go, I figure we'll probably be waiting until someone invents a more efficient or mobile form of battery, because if we shift our energy generation largely to plants, it's much easier to use the clean(er) forms of energy which we have discovered so far. However, I think there is ultimately little chance that corporate interests will allow us to act in time.

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=21540

Carbon nano-tube batteries could allow for up to 380 miles per charge on electrical cars and recharge in only 10 minutes.

[paladin]

Cant you charge those on 120 volt as well?

[sleepy1212]

Cant you charge those on 120 volt as well?

I'm pretty sure that would be the target. Problem with electric cars is that if everyone plugs their car in for the night the grid could shut down. Distribution of the owners is the main factor. Even relatively small proportions of electric vs gas cars put a strain on sources of electricity.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/electric/electric-car-future-test-drive-3
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1038392_will-electric-cars-destroy-your-neighborhood-power-grid-no-but

Even still, we rely on fossil fuels primarily to make electricity. In fact, I'm not convinced that changing the cars, even if all the cars in the world were non-polluting/economical that it would put that much of dent in the problem. Cheaper gas would be greatly overshadowed by the price of the car. Manufacturing of the new cars requires a lot more waste through acquiring and transporting raw materials and parts from a wider network of supplies. Like i mentioned before, the carbon footprint of the Prius is actually larger than the standard economy sedan because of manufacturing.

Keep in mind, the only reason cars are "picked on" is because it affects us directly and is easier to imagine. It's really a mental game. The real aggressors are in manufacturing, power plants, and resource acquisition. I think the first step in change has to be in the way we generate power. Changing smaller things first like cars only hinders us in the long run.

[paladin]

I agree. Completely ridding ourself of oil is ludicrous. That idea is impossible. 35% of a barrel of oil goes towards non-fuel type products ie.

ammonia
anesthetics
antifreeze
antihistamines
antiseptics
artificial limbs
artificial turf
aspirin
awnings
balloons
ballpoint pens
bandages
basketballs
bearing grease
bicycle tires
boats
cameras
candles
car battery cases
car enamel
cassettes
caulking
cd player
cd's
clothes
clothesline
cold cream
combs
cortisone
crayons
curtains
dashboards
denture adhesive
dentures
deodorant
detergents
dice
diesel
dishes
dishwasher
dresses
drinking cups
dyes
electric blankets
electrician's tape
enamel
epoxy
eyeglasses
fan belts
faucet washers
fertilizers
fishing boots
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
folding doors
food preservatives
football cleats
football helmets
footballs
footballs
gasoline
glycerin
golf bags
golf balls
guitar strings
hair coloring
hair curlers
hand lotion
heart valves
house paint
ice chests
ice cube trays
ink
insect repellent
insecticides
life jackets
linings
linoleum
lipstick
luggage
model cars
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmet
movie film
nail polish
nylon rope
oil filters
paint
paint brushes
paint rollers
panty hose
parachutes
percolators
perfumes
petroleum jelly
pillows
plastic wood
purses
putty
refrigerant
refrigerators
roller skates
roofing
rubber cement
rubbing alcohol
safety glasses
shag rugs
shampoo
shaving cream
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
skis
slacks
soap
soft contact lenses
solvents
speakers
sports car bodies
sun glasses
surf boards
sweaters
synthetic rubber
telephones
tennis rackets
tents
tires
toilet seats
tool boxes
tool racks
toothbrushes
toothpaste
transparent tape
trash bags
tv cabinets
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
water pipes
wheels
yarn
air conditioners
ammonia
anti-histamines
antiseptics
artificial turf
asphalt
aspirin
balloons
bandages
boats
bottles
bras
bubble gum
butane
cameras
candles
car batteries
car bodies
carpet
cassette tapes
caulking
cds
chewing gum
combs/brushes
computers
contacts
cortisone
crayons
cream
denture adhesives
deodorant
detergents
dice
dishwashing liquid
dresses
dryers
electric blankets
electrician’s tape
fertilizers
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
footballs
glues
glycerin
golf balls
guitar strings
hair
hair coloring
hair curlers
hearing aids
heart valves
heating oil
house paint
ice chests
ink
insect repellent
insulation
jet fuel
life jackets
linoleum
lip balm
lipstick
loudspeakers
medicines
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmets
movie film
nail polish
oil filters
paddles
paint brushes
paints
parachutes
paraffin
pens
perfumes
petroleum jelly
plastic chairs
plastic cups
plastic forks
plastic wrap
plastics
plywood adhesives
refrigerators
roller-skate wheels
roofing paper
rubber bands
rubber boots
rubber cement
rubbish bags
running shoes
saccharine
seals
shirts (non-cotton)
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
solvents
spectacles
stereos
sweaters
table tennis balls
tape recorders
telephones
tennis rackets
thermos
tights
toilet seats
toners
toothpaste
transparencies
transparent tape
tv cabinets
typewriter/computer ribbons
tires
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
volleyballs
water pipes
water skis
wax
wax paper

[FRain]

Well, obviously we can't economically and physically RID ourselves of oil. However, we can reduce usage of it and find other ways to perform such actions.

Why does everyone think that we are talking in a true/false world? There's not going to be a switch that we can flip, that just immediately makes all forms of oil disappear. But, it would be nice if we reduced our amount of oil usage, wouldn't it?

[rossmum]

huge fuck-off list
basically any synthetic material and/or anything made since the '40s cannot exist without oil, aside from which collectors would seriously get the shits if they couldn't fire up their cars/boats/planes/engines every now and then

fuck the world would be a horrible, depressing place without the roar of merlin engines

that said, there's no legitimate excuse for not pursuing better means of power generation i.e. nuclear for the time being and then perhaps something else as 'clean' energy becomes more viable. power generation and industry are the worst offenders and also the least complicated to overhaul, they should be the first to change

[paladin]

I think if we can get down to the point were all we need oil for is for oil-based products, then we'd be good. But I absolutely hate when people say "oil-free" because that would be impossible.

[rossmum]

I'd leave some leeway in there - even if they're not clean, historical machines need to be preserved and run from time to time. It's all well and good making all these plans for the future, but it'd be a real shame if we forgot our past. The good thing is that a lot more people these days seem to realise the importance of doing so and with modern technology it's becoming a lot easier.

Maybe in a few hundred years there'll still be some of those weird old petrol-powered cars in working order. I hope so.

[paladin]

Like my uncles fully restored Model T

[rossmum]

:allears:

[Bodzilla]

I agree. Completely ridding ourself of oil is ludicrous. That idea is impossible. 35% of a barrel of oil goes towards non-fuel type products ie.

ammonia
anesthetics
antifreeze
antihistamines
antiseptics
artificial limbs
artificial turf
aspirin
awnings
balloons
ballpoint pens
bandages
basketballs
bearing grease
bicycle tires
boats
cameras
candles
car battery cases
car enamel
cassettes
caulking
cd player
cd's
clothes
clothesline
cold cream
combs
cortisone
crayons
curtains
dashboards
denture adhesive
dentures
deodorant
detergents
dice
diesel
dishes
dishwasher
dresses
drinking cups
dyes
electric blankets
electrician's tape
enamel
epoxy
eyeglasses
fan belts
faucet washers
fertilizers
fishing boots
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
folding doors
food preservatives
football cleats
football helmets
footballs
footballs
gasoline
glycerin
golf bags
golf balls
guitar strings
hair coloring
hair curlers
hand lotion
heart valves
house paint
ice chests
ice cube trays
ink
insect repellent
insecticides
life jackets
linings
linoleum
lipstick
luggage
model cars
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmet
movie film
nail polish
nylon rope
oil filters
paint
paint brushes
paint rollers
panty hose
parachutes
percolators
perfumes
petroleum jelly
pillows
plastic wood
purses
putty
refrigerant
refrigerators
roller skates
roofing
rubber cement
rubbing alcohol
safety glasses
shag rugs
shampoo
shaving cream
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
skis
slacks
soap
soft contact lenses
solvents
speakers
sports car bodies
sun glasses
surf boards
sweaters
synthetic rubber
telephones
tennis rackets
tents
tires
toilet seats
tool boxes
tool racks
toothbrushes
toothpaste
transparent tape
trash bags
tv cabinets
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
water pipes
wheels
yarn
air conditioners
ammonia
anti-histamines
antiseptics
artificial turf
asphalt
aspirin
balloons
bandages
boats
bottles
bras
bubble gum
butane
cameras
candles
car batteries
car bodies
carpet
cassette tapes
caulking
cds
chewing gum
combs/brushes
computers
contacts
cortisone
crayons
cream
denture adhesives
deodorant
detergents
dice
dishwashing liquid
dresses
dryers
electric blankets
electrician’s tape
fertilizers
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
footballs
glues
glycerin
golf balls
guitar strings
hair
hair coloring
hair curlers
hearing aids
heart valves
heating oil
house paint
ice chests
ink
insect repellent
insulation
jet fuel
life jackets
linoleum
lip balm
lipstick
loudspeakers
medicines
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmets
movie film
nail polish
oil filters
paddles
paint brushes
paints
parachutes
paraffin
pens
perfumes
petroleum jelly
plastic chairs
plastic cups
plastic forks
plastic wrap
plastics
plywood adhesives
refrigerators
roller-skate wheels
roofing paper
rubber bands
rubber boots
rubber cement
rubbish bags
running shoes
saccharine
seals
shirts (non-cotton)
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
solvents
spectacles
stereos
sweaters
table tennis balls
tape recorders
telephones
tennis rackets
thermos
tights
toilet seats
toners
toothpaste
transparencies
transparent tape
tv cabinets
typewriter/computer ribbons
tires
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
volleyballs
water pipes
water skis
wax
wax paper
Asbestos was pretty useful too, but y'know after it kinda fucked everyone up they stopped producing it and got by.

just throwing that out there.

[Dwood]

Asbestos was pretty useful too, but y'know after it kinda fucked everyone up they stopped producing it and got by.

just throwing that out there.

Problem is, there is almost no getting by without oil as most plastics are byproducts of oil... Can't have hinges working properly without it either, especially running engines for long periods of time.

[rossmum]

Asbestos was pretty useful too, but y'know after it kinda fucked everyone up they stopped producing it and got by.

just throwing that out there.
Asbestos isn't a base from which nearly every item we use was formed, Bodie. There are many, many hundreds of degrees of separation there.

[paladin]

Your aspirin you take now, is petroleum based. Along with another long list of pharmaceuticals. But I guess when can go back to 19th century medicine and just chop peoples' limbs off and split their brains in two. Not using oil is soooo worth it.

[rossmum]

Let's spot the things in this room which wouldn't be here without oil!

My computer, along with all its peripherals and shit
All the pens on my desk
My TV
The varnish on the wooden furniture and floors
My phone
Every CD/DVD and its case
Plastic bags
My backpack
My desk
My chair
My clothes (or at least those with synthetic fibres in them, which are quite common now)

That's just in one room and I'm skipping all the plastic shit in the drawers, on my desk, and on the couch. Are you starting to get the picture now, Bodie?

Shit asbestos was in:

Fibro
Fireproof suits
Gaskets
Some electronic stuff

Notice how much shorter that list is.

[Bodzilla]

Asbestos isn't a base from which nearly every item we use was formed, Bodie. There are many, many hundreds of degrees of separation there.
Go back and check out asbestos man it was used for just about everything at one stage. From Screws to car break-pads. If we look for alternatives we can find them.
the only thing is because of big oil bying out all the alternative sources we arnt forced to look for any.

Hence why there isnt any.
I mean polycarbons are fantastic and all but theres no way in hell that they are the Only thing we could use to make sinthetic shit, it's just what we're used too and have the most knowledge in.

[CN3089]

No actually they are pretty much required for the modern world to function at all. And that's just fine, it's burning hydrocarbons that is the bad thing.

[paladin]

yeah because .0005%* Carbon Dioxide going to cause Antarctica to melt.:tinfoil:

*note CO2 makes up less that 0.038 of the Earth's atmosphere.

[NuggetWarmer]

hemp, man

hemp

[rossmum]

Go back and check out asbestos man it was used for just about everything at one stage. From Screws to car break-pads. If we look for alternatives we can find them.
the only thing is because of big oil bying out all the alternative sources we arnt forced to look for any.
Asbestos was used for anything that needed to resist heat, hence being used in brake pads and some screws as well as things like gaskets and fibro and fireproofing in old firefighting gear. It wasn't used in nearly every single item in existence (either directly or indirectly).


Hence why there isnt any.
I mean polycarbons are fantastic and all but theres no way in hell that they are the Only thing we could use to make sinthetic shit, it's just what we're used too and have the most knowledge in.
Who's going to foot the bill for researching new materials, and assuming we find a way of producing the same stuff without using oil, who the fuck is going to pay for every single fucking factory to re-tool for it? You're in la-la land if you think it's feasible on any level to completely remove oil from the equation, especially if you think it's going to happen within the next century.


yeah because .0005%* Carbon Dioxide going to cause Antarctica to melt.:tinfoil:

*note CO2 makes up less that 0.038 of the Earth's atmosphere.
You'd be surprised how comparatively little an amount of something it takes to fuck our planet's fragile balance up. 0.038 is still a fucking lot of CO2, and it concentrates in certain areas of the atmosphere. The thing has several distinct layers, it's not just some huge ball of evenly-distributed gas that suddenly stops on the verge of space.

[Bodzilla]

was used in cement as well bro, But it's not as if we ever use cement for anything now is it.

It was an incredible bonding agent.

and Nice strawman. i never said anything about over night going oil free, or going oil free at all. All i said is that there will be alternatives out there if we bothered to research it.

so again, just throwing that out there.

[rossmum]

Cement can easily be made without it. There's a difference between removing an additive and removing an integral base component from which nearly everything is derived.

So where are these alternatives? You realise, right, that certain chemicals we use literally every day are only fractioned off from crude oil? The cost of researching and implementing alternatives would be immense, because you'd be passing up the most convenient solution just on principle (because processing crude is hardly a clean process, so unless you did go oil-free then what the fuck is all this intended to do?).

[Bodzilla]

knowledge.

[rossmum]

So you want to blow all that money on finally figuring out alternatives, and then sit on the result because oh, why go totally oil free even though you now know how to?

You're not making a lot of sense.

[Bodzilla]

who said it's going to be a cost blow out. i mean if you want to change everything then of course it will, but a gradual fade out on singular items over time... hell we might even find something thats cheaper and more viable then something ww bring up out of a hole 1000's of metres under the sea.

[rossmum]

You don't seem to realise the sheer magnitude of the ideas you're throwing around. When I'm saying nearly everything we use today requires crude oil, I'm not exaggerating. Practically any synthetic material, plastic, cleaning chemicals, various drugs, polishes and varnishes, electronic components, the list goes on - they are all made from materials derived from crude. Phasing those out is going to take a fucking long time and a fucking lot of money, so why do it?

[=sw=warlord]

You don't seem to realise the sheer magnitude of the ideas you're throwing around. When I'm saying nearly everything we use today requires crude oil, I'm not exaggerating. Practically any synthetic material, plastic, cleaning chemicals, various drugs, polishes and varnishes, electronic components, the list goes on - they are all made from materials derived from crude. Phasing those out is going to take a fucking long time and a fucking lot of money, so why do it?

Because you simply cannot rely on rotting veg thousands of feet under the ground, crude oil simply is not a self sustaining resource we can depend on for the next thousand years.
For a long time we depended on horse power for nearly everything from farming to transport, then we moved onto steam powered and now we depend on oil, sooner or later we are going to run out of oil and we will be bent over a barrel quicker than a free whore in Amsterdam.

[sleepy1212]

There are already plastics being made from beans. Eventually crude will fade out. There's no reason to dump resources into developing it all at once but it will have to happen sooner or later.

also: water vapor > CO2

[Cojafoji]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp


Gasoline 46%
Diesel Fuel 18%
Jet Fuel (Kerosene) 8%
Propane/Propylene 6%
NGL & LRG2 5%
Still Gas 3%
Residual/Heavy Fuel Oil 3%
Petrochemical Feedstocks 3%
Heating Oil3 3%
Petroleum Coke 2%
Asphalt and Road Oil 2%
Lubricants 1%
Miscellaneous Products 0.3%
Special Naphthas 0.2%
Aviation Gasoline 0.1%
Kerosene 0.1%
Waxes 0.05%

If you knock out the top three, I think we'd be able to sustain ourselves with the amount of oil we still have for an indefinite period of time. Coupled with an increased recycling rate of plastics FOR plastic, the decreased usage of frivolous plastic usage (water bottles, plastic bags, useless packaging etc), as well as a plastic reclamation project, (active scouring of the Pacific Trash Ring, as well as existing landfills) I think we'd be fine.

[rossmum]

Because you simply cannot rely on rotting veg thousands of feet under the ground, crude oil simply is not a self sustaining resource we can depend on for the next thousand years.
For a long time we depended on horse power for nearly everything from farming to transport, then we moved onto steam powered and now we depend on oil, sooner or later we are going to run out of oil and we will be bent over a barrel quicker than a free whore in Amsterdam.
Yes, but even if you find an alternative, you can't switch to it straight away. Factories take time to change tooling and any alternative needs to be tested first - what happens if we switch all production to it only to discover it falls apart after only a few weeks, or it's even worse for the environment (or us)?



http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp



Gasoline 46%
Diesel Fuel 18%
Jet Fuel (Kerosene) 8%
Propane/Propylene 6%
NGL & LRG2 5%
Still Gas 3%
Residual/Heavy Fuel Oil 3%
Petrochemical Feedstocks 3%
Heating Oil3 3%
Petroleum Coke 2%
Asphalt and Road Oil 2%
Lubricants 1%
Miscellaneous Products 0.3%
Special Naphthas 0.2%
Aviation Gasoline 0.1%
Kerosene 0.1%
Waxes 0.05%


If you knock out the top three, I think we'd be able to sustain ourselves with the amount of oil we still have for an indefinite period of time. Coupled with an increased recycling rate of plastics FOR plastic, the decreased usage of frivolous plastic usage (water bottles, plastic bags, useless packaging etc), as well as a plastic reclamation project, (active scouring of the Pacific Trash Ring, as well as existing landfills) I think we'd be fine.
I agree, and I think that should be our aim. Start by switching power generation, then engine fuel, and once we're done with those, the rest should take care of itself.

[paladin]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp


Gasoline 46%
Diesel Fuel 18%
Jet Fuel (Kerosene) 8%
Propane/Propylene 6%
NGL & LRG2 5%
Still Gas 3%
Residual/Heavy Fuel Oil 3%
Petrochemical Feedstocks 3%
Heating Oil3 3%
Petroleum Coke 2%
Asphalt and Road Oil 2%
Lubricants 1%
Miscellaneous Products 0.3%
Special Naphthas 0.2%
Aviation Gasoline 0.1%
Kerosene 0.1%
Waxes 0.05%

If you knock out the top three, I think we'd be able to sustain ourselves with the amount of oil we still have for an indefinite period of time. Coupled with an increased recycling rate of plastics FOR plastic, the decreased usage of frivolous plastic usage (water bottles, plastic bags, useless packaging etc), as well as a plastic reclamation project, (active scouring of the Pacific Trash Ring, as well as existing landfills) I think we'd be fine.

Like I said a page ago... fuel type products make up only 65% of a barrel or oil.

[Bodzilla]

bingo. (was for warlord)

we also do plenty of things for knowledge.
LHC for example.

And i do know we use it for just about everything, only thing is we dont have a choice, because we've got to change something because as it stands we just arn't sustainable.
and i'd rather do it over time then be like "oh shit where out... now what...."

[rossmum]

If we can find other fuels, then yes, it does become sustainable - at least for a considerable amount of time.

[Bhamid]

Why can't we go completely oil-free? Maybe not in our lifetimes, or our childrens' but that could be achievable sometime in the future. If we don't start to research in alternative ways to get around oil dependence then we won't ever get anywhere. Personally I think Hydrogen is the way to go (ethanol's 'eco-friendly love' rating depends wildly depending on the manufacturing method (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text), and electricity shifts the power drain onto the National Grids), but that technology won't mature unless there is interest.

[rossmum]

Hydrogen won't magically produce synthetic materials, which is why I seriously doubt we will be oil-free within the next few hundred years.

[=sw=warlord]

Hydrogen won't magically produce synthetic materials, which is why I seriously doubt we will be oil-free within the next few hundred years.

No, but you can produce heavier elements using Hydrogen to achieve same results.
Currently it's very expensive to even attempt this but as technology evolves and becomes far more advanced we could effectively create resources from base elements.

[rossmum]

That is a long way off. A very long way off. Being able to do that on a sufficient scale to replace oil-derived products isn't something we'll see in our lifetimes and I'd put money on it that our kids won't, either.

[=sw=warlord]

That is a long way off. A very long way off. Being able to do that on a sufficient scale to replace oil-derived products isn't something we'll see in our lifetimes and I'd put money on it that our kids won't, either.
I know it's a long way off but the point was, Hydrogen can be used to produce synthetic materials.
It's better to start research sooner rather than later, the sooner research is started the sooner it is finished and put into large production.

[ejburke]

My money is on algae. If we can find or engineer an optimal strain, figure out a way to protect it from contamination, and refine our methods of extracting oil efficiently, we're set. The algae can be raised in otherwise worthless land, all it needs is light and carbon dioxide, and it can produce very energetic lipids that can be processed into fuel that will work in existing engines.

We already know this method works and companies are already producing algae-based biodiesel and jet fuel, we just have to make it more cost-effective by allowing the technology to mature.

[paladin]

Whats wrong with using oil for products and not fuel? Theres no reason to shut down a multi-billion dollar a year industry that has 10s, if not hundreds of millions of workers world wide. Your dumb if you think thats a good idea.

And algae, I cant remember what show it was, but some refineries in Arizona have algae farms attached to them basically as carbon scrubbers.

[Cojafoji]

Like I said a page ago... fuel type products make up only 65% of a barrel or oil.
Just wanted to provide a more detailed and accurate breakdown of resources.

[Bhamid]

No, but Hydrogen has the potential to replace one oil product, given time and research.

[paladin]

I still don't see why total annihilation of a multi-billion dollar a year industry is necessary. Sure Hydrogen can replace fuel, but can it make my t-shirt, my makeup, my aspirin, or my tires?

[=sw=warlord]

I still don't see why total annihilation of a multi-billion dollar a year industry is necessary. Sure Hydrogen can replace fuel, but can it make my t-shirt, my makeup, my aspirin, or my tires?
For a large majority, yes, the base element's were made in stars and super novas, which started out burning hydrogen.
The iron came from the cores of stars, the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels came from the carbon expelled from super novas.
This is beyond the point.
It may well be a multi billion dollar industry but crude oil simply is not self sustaining and sooner or later, that oil will run out, if we do not invest into alternative sources for our raw materials we will be stuck with nothing to use.

[CN3089]

But not for a long time, and it's likely any alternative we find will be much less profitable than crude oil or recycling crude oil products.



e: and suggesting that the alternative will be using the products of a fusion plant (as you seem to be suggesting) is absurd

[ejburke]

I'm confused, are you guys talking about hydrogen fusion as a source of energy or are you talking about fusing hydrogen into heavier elements to constitute a man-made hydrocarbon fuel? The former is waaaaay way off, if it's even possible or practical without the vacuum of space as a buffer and massive amounts of gravitational pressure doing the work for you. The latter is just flat-out impractical. You would spend far more energy forcing protons together than you would ever get back out of the product materials. You would need to have the energy problem already solved before even attempting such a thing.

[=sw=warlord]

I'm confused, are you guys talking about hydrogen fusion as a source of energy or are you talking about fusing hydrogen into heavier elements to constitute a man-made hydrocarbon fuel? The former is waaaaay way off, if it's even possible or practical without the vacuum of space as a buffer and massive amounts of gravitational pressure doing the work for you. The latter is just flat-out impractical. You would spend far more energy forcing protons together than you would ever get back out of the product materials. You would need to have the energy problem already solved before even attempting such a thing.
I'm talking about synthesizing fuels as well as materials, paladin is claiming it is nigh impossible to replace the current system.
Think about it, there was once a time where everything was powered by steam, people thought it would be impossible to replace the system then, now is no different, all that is needed is research into alternatives.
It wasn't too long ago people claimed you could not remove lead from products, now we can practically have anything lead free.

[ejburke]

The problem with man-made fuels is that you're going up against the law of Conservation of Energy. You will never be able to extract back out the equivalent of the energy that you put into creating it. Fossil fuels are economically viable because they take less energy to retrieve from the earth than they release upon combustion. If that efficiency ratio were inverted, we simply wouldn't use fossil fuels. It wouldn't make sense to do so.

[paladin]

By impossible,I meant improbable and unnecessary. Also, theres enough oil to last at current usage another 100 years or so, and if usage can be dropped by 65% percent, that increase the reserve significantly.

[Bhamid]

if usage can be dropped by 65% percent, that increase the reserve significantly.
And how are we going to achieve that without going into alternative energy sources?

[sleepy1212]

And how are we going to achieve that without going into alternative energy sources?

thought that's what he was saying, move on to other energy sources but retain oil for products.

[=sw=warlord]

thought that's what he was saying, move on to other energy sources but retain oil for products.

It really doesn't work like that though.
that percentage used for products is literally the percentage of the compound chemicals that can be used for those purposes.
I thought they taught you these things in school?
...O-wait....
http://www.gcsescience.com/Fractional-Distillation-Crude-Oil.gif

[sleepy1212]

It really doesn't work like that though.
that percentage used for products is literally the percentage of the compound chemicals that can be used for those purposes.
I thought they taught you these things in school?
...O-wait....

Organic Chemistry much? i did
Environmental Chemistry much? i did

so what's your point?

you're saying that because only part of the crude can be used to make things other than gas we can't extract it for that purpose only?

the only thing you could possibly be saying that makes any sense is that it won't make oil reserves last longer.

[=sw=warlord]

Organic Chemistry much? i did
Environmental Chemistry much? i did

so what's your point?

you're saying that because only part of the crude can be used to make things other than gas we can't extract it for that purpose only?

the only thing you could possibly be saying that makes any sense is that it won't make oil reserves last longer.My point is, even if you were to dedicate crude oil to non combustive oil based consumables, you would still have the fossil fuel left over, you can't recycle the left over, it would simply be like taking the rising flour out of a recipe, sure fine it's been taken out but what do you do with it now?
It has no other practical uses, you can't use it as sugar or as something completely different.
It wouldn't make the reserves last longer, all it would mean is we would end up with more waste taking place than we do now.

[Bhamid]

So you're saying not using some of the substances coming from the different fractions would be a waste?

[=sw=warlord]

So you're saying not using some of the substances coming from the different fractions would be a waste?
Practically, yes, it would.
Tell me, how much would you expect it to cost to store these substances for extended periods.
We are already finding out the very same problem with the storage of nuclear materials which can be used as nuclear fuel for power stations.
Paladin, is claiming if you didn't use those fractions distilled from the oil, the reserve usage would somehow decrease, that simply is not the case.

[sleepy1212]

you would still have the fossil fuel left over, you can't recycle the left over

you can though, since petroleum is basically a mixture of different length hydrocarbons. if i were home i could open up my old lab notes and list some syntheses we did.

[=sw=warlord]

you can though, since petroleum is basically a mixture of different length hydrocarbons. if i were home i could open up my old lab notes and list some syntheses we did.

When I say fossil fuel, I mean the kerosene, the diesel and gasses, not the petroleum itself.
The percentages used for other products like bitumen and the waxes and other oils, distil at different temperatures, which is what I'm getting at.
I actually live a stones throw away from Lindsey oil refinery (http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/lindsey-refinery/), Each year they have a thing going on near where I live where they explain the various uses for the different compounds.

[ejburke]

Plastics and lubricants are not going to support the oil industry. Nobody is going to devote the ever increasing resources to prospecting and drilling just so we can have grocery bags. The fuel is where the money is.

It's like hunting buffalo, when all you want are the hoofs and tail.

We're either going to find alternatives to petroleum-based materials or they'll become too expensive to bother with.

[sleepy1212]

When I say fossil fuel, I mean the kerosene, the diesel and gasses, not the petroleum itself.

Petroleum is a catch all for all of those, including the fuels. What I'm trying to point out is that it is possible to use the fuels, since they are hydrocarbon chains as well, to synthesize to other hydrocarbons. I'll admit though that it would be difficult since they evaporate at room temperature. the other problem...


The fuel is where the money is.

right now there isn't a market for using the majority of crude in any other way, even though it is possible.

Fractional Distillation (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/question105.htm) for anyone who wants to catch up

[Warsaw]

We actually can replicate the polymers ourselves without cude oil, it's just that it takes more energy to do so. Since we presently derive a lot of our energy from fossil fuels anyways, there's no point in synthesizing the whole thing as we are using the oil one way or the other.

Also, for electric cars (mentioned way back at the beginning of thread in response to my idea for fuel): Until they get ultracapacitor tech up and running, it takes longer to charge than I'm willing to sit at a station for in exchange for less mileage than you can get with a petrol engine. Someone is also going to get the bright idea to start charging customers an assload of cash per amp-hour of charge when I can charge at home for less...they'll also find some way to justify a steady price hike over the years. I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay for gasoline or some tangible fuel than pay for something intangible that I can get at home for less. It's like paying for Xbox Live services on top of my regular ISP...it does not make any sense, especially because Xbox Live doesn't actually get you anything...games are hosted on your box anyways.