The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Forgive me for not clarifying then. Currently our entire energy supply is based around oil, and oil has an extremely high output in comparison to the amount of energy we put into it. All of the alternatives that are yet in existence have nowhere near the same ratio. And to a point this is a relatively closed system, in that all the energy we get is coming from the sun, which is, as far as i know, a fixed amount. The energy we're using right now is the stored energy of several million years ago. So with this knowledge in mind we'll have to put in place enough energy output to equal that which is consumed by oil at this time, or establish mass transportation systems which are capable of using that energy so we could cut down on it. From what little I understand about economics, is that when oil prices rise, everything else is affected by it. Some weight may be given to the declining dollar as a reasoning for the rise in oil prices.
I ask for some time in order to get the information on the exact ratios between oil and the alternatives, but from my small amount of research into hydrogen is that it is extremely difficult to store it, and I have a difficult time of determining the problems that may arises when we try to base calculations on numbers that, as of yet, don't exist.
While the amount of energy the sun is finite, it's also about 10.000x what we use currently, and will be so for the next 4.000.000 years. It's pretty reliable, if we can just harness 0.1% of it we're set for a long long time (via water wind solar osmosis). Won't be terribly easy or cheap, but perhaps it can be done. Getting 20-30% of our power supply out of it is certainly viable, and already economicly feasable.
Nuclear fission is certainly a middle term solution. Expensive and unpopular with the general populace, with notable drawbacks, but not nearly as problematic concerning climate change as coal. We have enough thorium especially to last for quite a while. We're getting better at reducing the long term radioactive waste, though it's by far it's biggest drawback, apart from the security risk.
Fusion is even better. It basicly runs of Li(6), which is 7% of a substance currently having a market price of around $90 / pound. (How expensive purification is I don't know, but you don't need that much for nuclear reactors anyway) The technology needed for it is expensive and not ready, but if you say "the next 5 years of research, which should produce a net power gain for the first time, cost about 40 million barrels of oil", it already sounds a lot better. There is no long term radioactive waste, though the reaction chamber will be radioactive, with a projected century or so. No huge security risk either, if something breaks down there's no cascade reaction, it powers down if the containment chamber fails.
I'm not worried about running out of plastics or anything. They may become more expensive, but if we get alternative energy flowing, our bulk chemistry is good enough to make all of it. It's a tiny problem compared to the energy one.
Oil is 39%, not 95%. Gas and coal do not run out at the same time as oil. Gas is the next to go, but as of now, production is still rising. Should probably be good for another 20-30 years at least.
2005 and 2006 statistics it has the US of using about 40% of its energy from oil. And it's not that our "entire" energy is based around oil, it's that the products that we use that are derivitives of oil.
Savant, could you possibly enlighten me on how energy works, these basics that I seem to be missing. From my understanding of it, is that the vehicles we use require oil to power them, we then use those vehicles to transfer food, harvest resources such as coal and nuclear materials, with additional uses of the oil in creating the pesticides and fertilizer which gives us the food we eat. etc. Am I missing the logic of economics where supply curbs the demand? What happens when you can't lower the demand beyond a certain point and the supply drops below that?
Oil is not going to fall of the face of the earth from one day to the next, it'll go slowly. Look at the predictions, it's a few percent each year after 2015. What will happen is that more and more production processes will phase out as it gets (radically) more expensive and use alternatives. The cost change alone will motivate a lot of the switches.
For every possible thing you make with oil, you can also use an alternative, either a comparable product, or just chemistry and recreate the fraction of oil you badly need. Problem is, that's expensive, way more expensive then oil at the moment. Oil does not consist out of some magical molecules, it's just convenient long hydrocarbons, with a lot of stored energy.
Cars can run on hydrogen, that much is clear right now. A lot of work is being done in making it more attractive (cheaper, simpler, lighter), but it's possible. A switch from petrol to hydrogen cars worldwide is going to cost a hell of lot of money, but chances are it'll happen in our lifetime, because we really haven't got much of a choice (As long as batteries don't get massively better).
What we really need is a solution for the energy, and while those exist too, they all carry with them downsides in cost, enviromental, availability, and public opinion, so they are not being pursued yet.
2005 and 2006 statistics it has the US of using about 40% of its energy from oil. And it's not that our "entire" energy is based around oil, it's that the products that we use that are derivitives of oil.
Savant, could you possibly enlighten me on how energy works, these basics that I seem to be missing. From my understanding of it, is that the vehicles we use require oil to power them, we then use those vehicles to transfer food, harvest resources such as coal and nuclear materials, with additional uses of the oil in creating the pesticides and fertilizer which gives us the food we eat. etc. Am I missing the logic of economics where supply curbs the demand? What happens when you can't lower the demand beyond a certain point and the supply drops below that?
The keys here are supply response and demand response. Supply response has a fairly straightforward component: price is going up, so you try to go and drill more oil. Oil that was previously uneconomical to extract becomes economical to extract. Also, this has a promotive effect on alternatives. Simple example: if you could make fuel out of shit at the equivalent of 5 dollars a gallon, you wouldn't start making fuel out of shit until gas hit 5 dollars a gallon or so.
The main implication of peak oil is this: at a certain point supply becomes increasingly inelastic, and contrary to typical supply/demand after a certain point in time supply will decrease in elasticity rather than increase as supply goes down. In other words, the quantity of oil produced will become less sensitive to price changes as there is only so much oil you can drill only so easily. This inelasticity doesn't necessarily translate to inelasticity in alternatives to oil.
However, there is the demand response side of the equation to. The simple demand response is conservation, use less. Go on less trips, drive less, use public transportation, and so forth. This also has effects on correlated energy markets, such as electricity, which promote conservation there. Longer term demand response is switching over to alternatives, or to have a higher focus on efficiency. Buying more fuel efficient cars, even if they cost more upfront. Also, another long term response is changing living habits and location, such as by moving closer to where you work.
Now, a common feature of the paranoia side of peak oil is an assumption that market collapse is imminent as a result of this. Market collapse is possible, but I find it doubtful that it will occur simply as a result of peak oil, UNLESS the onset is too rapid for the long term responses to appropriately kick in. If you wake up tomorrow morning and gas is $20 a gallon, the shit hits the fan. However, if it takes 20 years for that to happen and the market can see it coming, then there is time to adapt. Standard of living could definitely go down, but there are a lot of low hanging fruit in terms of behavioral adjustments to offset the burden caused by increasing energy prices. And reducing demand has a downward pressure on prices.
Also note that I haven't mentioned government intervention yet. Government intervention can be beneficial if it forces the markets towards long term goals over short term goals. However, it is often detrimental. See: corn based ethanol.
Oil is 39%, not 95%. Gas and coal do not run out at the same time as oil. Gas is the next to go, but as of now, production is still rising. Should probably be good for another 20-30 years at least.
One question, and probably something that could be a thread in and of itself, or easily answered in a wiki link or something... can we make plastics from something that isn't petrol?
Oil is 39%, not 95%. Gas and coal do not run out at the same time as oil. Gas is the next to go, but as of now, production is still rising. Should probably be good for another 20-30 years at least.
One question, and probably something that could be a thread in and of itself, or easily answered in a wiki link or something... can we make plastics from something that isn't petrol?
Of course, and it's being done. Many car companies have switched to plant-based plastics for car bodies.
Oil is 39%, not 95%. Gas and coal do not run out at the same time as oil. Gas is the next to go, but as of now, production is still rising. Should probably be good for another 20-30 years at least.
One question, and probably something that could be a thread in and of itself, or easily answered in a wiki link or something... can we make plastics from something that isn't petrol?
Of course, and it's being done. Many car companies have switched to plant-based plastics for car bodies.
Technically, I think you can make them from any organic substance. It's just that it is a lot cheaper to get corn plastics than hunt down endangered whales to make plastic.
Holy crap. I would kill for a bottle water that was bottled using only 100% endangered whale plastic.
Synthetic plastics have emerged because of the original reasons of the post. There are industries that think that fossil fuels will eventually run out, and we wanted to have eventualities for that. As well, you can synthetically make just about anything these days, its just how much energy it takes. Hell, I can make synthetic fossil fuels, or bio-diesel, or anything like that.
Synthetic plastics have emerged because of the original reasons of the post. There are industries that think that fossil fuels will eventually run out, and we wanted to have eventualities for that. As well, you can synthetically make just about anything these days, its just how much energy it takes. Hell, I can make synthetic fossil fuels, or bio-diesel, or anything like that.
I know about synthetic fossil fuels (hell, my cars all have Mobil 1), just wasn't sure about the synthetic plastics. I thought I'd heard something at some point about it, but wasn't sure. Thanks, everyone.
This post is funny/pathetic on so many levels. 1: 'Big Pharma Cartels.' 2: According to my grandpa, the _same_ thing happened to his neighbor. Gramps, that you? 3: The whole tinfoil hat 'companies are sitting on X big discovery, because it would destroy them, and of course there is NO possible way 'Big Pharma :P' could profit from a cure for cancer, or 'Big Motora' could profit from the mythical 100 mpg engine.'
This post is funny/pathetic on just one level - you must be borderline illiterate to get any of that from my post. You're a much bigger tinfoil hat looney than I could ever be. Stupidity, naivite, and pompous douchebaggery all in one post. You're a real winner, guy. I'm the one looking down on you shaking my head, guy. Grow up and learn how to read/address somebody's post validly, not spout a bunch of stupid half-witted "counterpoints." Go to the patent office and look up who owns all of the alternative energy idea patents. Go ahead. There's no conspiracy theory - just common sense. Which you lack if you're actually dumb enough to take issue with anything I posted. Go re-take High School History and Economics. We'll wait.
This post is funny/pathetic on so many levels. 1: 'Big Pharma Cartels.' 2: According to my grandpa, the _same_ thing happened to his neighbor. Gramps, that you? 3: The whole tinfoil hat 'companies are sitting on X big discovery, because it would destroy them, and of course there is NO possible way 'Big Pharma :P' could profit from a cure for cancer, or 'Big Motora' could profit from the mythical 100 mpg engine.'
This post is funny/pathetic on just one level - you must be borderline illiterate to get any of that from my post. You're a much bigger tinfoil hat looney than I could ever be. Stupidity, naivite, and pompous douchebaggery all in one post. You're a real winner, guy. I'm the one looking down on you shaking my head, guy. Grow up and learn how to read/address somebody's post validly, not spout a bunch of stupid half-witted "counterpoints." Go to the patent office and look up who owns all of the alternative energy idea patents. Go ahead. There's no conspiracy theory - just common sense. Which you lack if you're actually dumb enough to take issue with anything I posted. Go re-take High School History and Economics. We'll wait.
I've asked for patent numbers on two seperate occasions in this thread and am still waiting.
This post is funny/pathetic on so many levels. 1: 'Big Pharma Cartels.' 2: According to my grandpa, the _same_ thing happened to his neighbor. Gramps, that you? 3: The whole tinfoil hat 'companies are sitting on X big discovery, because it would destroy them, and of course there is NO possible way 'Big Pharma :P' could profit from a cure for cancer, or 'Big Motora' could profit from the mythical 100 mpg engine.'
This post is funny/pathetic on just one level - you must be borderline illiterate to get any of that from my post. You're a much bigger tinfoil hat looney than I could ever be. Stupidity, naivite, and pompous douchebaggery all in one post. You're a real winner, guy. I'm the one looking down on you shaking my head, guy. Grow up and learn how to read/address somebody's post validly, not spout a bunch of stupid half-witted "counterpoints." Go to the patent office and look up who owns all of the alternative energy idea patents. Go ahead. There's no conspiracy theory - just common sense. Which you lack if you're actually dumb enough to take issue with anything I posted. Go re-take High School History and Economics. We'll wait.
I've asked for patent numbers on two seperate occasions in this thread and am still waiting.
Not a number, but it's about the key batteries for electric car s.
Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries
In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries in the United States. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[12] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics.[13] Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[14] In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[14] On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[15] NiMH patent expires in 2015.
This post is funny/pathetic on so many levels. 1: 'Big Pharma Cartels.' 2: According to my grandpa, the _same_ thing happened to his neighbor. Gramps, that you? 3: The whole tinfoil hat 'companies are sitting on X big discovery, because it would destroy them, and of course there is NO possible way 'Big Pharma :P' could profit from a cure for cancer, or 'Big Motora' could profit from the mythical 100 mpg engine.'
This post is funny/pathetic on just one level - you must be borderline illiterate to get any of that from my post. You're a much bigger tinfoil hat looney than I could ever be. Stupidity, naivite, and pompous douchebaggery all in one post. You're a real winner, guy. I'm the one looking down on you shaking my head, guy. Grow up and learn how to read/address somebody's post validly, not spout a bunch of stupid half-witted "counterpoints." Go to the patent office and look up who owns all of the alternative energy idea patents. Go ahead. There's no conspiracy theory - just common sense. Which you lack if you're actually dumb enough to take issue with anything I posted. Go re-take High School History and Economics. We'll wait.
I've asked for patent numbers on two seperate occasions in this thread and am still waiting.
Have fun - I've filed no patents myself, so I can't help you there. If you find any, let us know, though - it'd be interesting to see proof rather than have to rely on plain old probability and common sense. Try reading up on... well, pretty much anything in the meantime.
Not a number, but it's about the key batteries for electric car s.
Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries
In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries in the United States. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[12] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics.[13] Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[14] In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[14] On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[15] NiMH patent expires in 2015.
Clearly no one is using NiMH batteries any more because of this hold on this clearly world-saving remove our dependance on oil technology oh wai...
NiMH batteries, produced by 1 company, hardly seems like the damning "suppressing alternative energy technologies" that grendel is so intent on insisting on. Particularly when you know, for EVs you want to use Li-Ion's and for hybrids we're already using NiMH or supercaps.
EDIT: GM bought Ovonics for precisely the purpose of building hybrids/hydrogen cars.
Hey, dumfucks - stop claiming I'm "insisting" on anything - the fact that I wouldn't be surprised if someone was sitting on patents doesn't mean I'm claiming it must be true. Learn to fucking read. :rolleyes:
Hey, dumfucks - stop claiming I'm "insisting" on anything - the fact that I wouldn't be surprised if someone was sitting on patents doesn't mean I'm claiming it must be true. Learn to fucking read. :rolleyes:
Things this post is doing wrong:
Insulting people who were perfectly polite to you.
Claiming that repeating a claim multiple times without expanding upon it in any substantial way is not "insisting."
Claiming a non-substantiated opinion is a fact. Then claiming that because it's an opinion it doesn't have to be true (but if you disbelieve it, you're a 'dumbfuck'.)
I don't have any problem with most of the stuff you're saying but please stop being a dick to everyone and calm down your rhetoric.
This post is funny/pathetic on so many levels. 1: 'Big Pharma Cartels.' 2: According to my grandpa, the _same_ thing happened to his neighbor. Gramps, that you? 3: The whole tinfoil hat 'companies are sitting on X big discovery, because it would destroy them, and of course there is NO possible way 'Big Pharma :P' could profit from a cure for cancer, or 'Big Motora' could profit from the mythical 100 mpg engine.'
This post is funny/pathetic on just one level - you must be borderline illiterate to get any of that from my post. You're a much bigger tinfoil hat looney than I could ever be. Stupidity, naivite, and pompous douchebaggery all in one post. You're a real winner, guy. I'm the one looking down on you shaking my head, guy. Grow up and learn how to read/address somebody's post validly, not spout a bunch of stupid half-witted "counterpoints." Go to the patent office and look up who owns all of the alternative energy idea patents. Go ahead. There's no conspiracy theory - just common sense. Which you lack if you're actually dumb enough to take issue with anything I posted. Go re-take High School History and Economics. We'll wait.
I've asked for patent numbers on two seperate occasions in this thread and am still waiting.
Have fun - I've filed no patents myself, so I can't help you there. If you find any, let us know, though - it'd be interesting to see proof rather than have to rely on plain old probability and common sense. Try reading up on... well, pretty much anything in the meantime.
What you're doing is making a claim, telling me to look for proof to back up your claim, then acting like everything is just fine.
When alternative fuel sources become profitable, big businesses will invest money towards their development.
All you gots 'ta do is follow the money
I find this mentality, which is essentially blind faith that some day the oil companies will stop selling a highly profitable resource to people who are more than happy to guzzle it down, highly disturbing. We have profitable, viable alternatives and have done for some time. The problem is that these alternatives are not as profitable and easy as permanently destroying the pristine landscapes of Alberta, Alaska, etc so that two generations of fat suburbanites can drive their wheeled palaces to work.
Being apathetic about this will not work. Waiting for oil companies to decide to stop drilling will not work. Everyone has to vote with their money, by buying fuel efficient cars and using public transit, and make the alternatives appear profitable to energy companies, so that they will start to explore those alternatives. Because right now all their accountants are seeing is 300 million Americans happily filling the tanks of their 20 mile per gallon piece of shit domestic SUVs with expensive gasoline.
When alternative fuel sources become profitable, big businesses will invest money towards their development.
All you gots 'ta do is follow the money
I find this mentality, which is essentially blind faith that some day the oil companies will stop selling a highly profitable resource to people who are more than happy to guzzle it down, highly disturbing. We have profitable, viable alternatives and have done for some time.
When alternative fuel sources become profitable, big businesses will invest money towards their development.
All you gots 'ta do is follow the money
I find this mentality, which is essentially blind faith that some day the oil companies will stop selling a highly profitable resource to people who are more than happy to guzzle it down, highly disturbing. We have profitable, viable alternatives and have done for some time.
Well, the current paradigm is coming to an end. That's just a matter of time. But hey, it's had a good run going from the start of the industrial revolution to a few decades from now. Not quite as long lived as 'lets use stones as tools' but a lot more impressive.
When alternative fuel sources become profitable, big businesses will invest money towards their development.
All you gots 'ta do is follow the money
I find this mentality, which is essentially blind faith that some day the oil companies will stop selling a highly profitable resource to people who are more than happy to guzzle it down, highly disturbing. We have profitable, viable alternatives and have done for some time.
Which would those be?
Cooking oil.
Did you miss the pages about how godawful bio-fuels are? If you're going to pretend that we have useful and useable alternatives right now at least point to nuclear or something.
I did. I think running your diesel car on cooking oil is a good way to vote with your dollar though, and a damn sight better for the environment (and more cost-effective) than filling up at the pump.
Consider that a diesel VW gets around 50mpg, and that number goes up by about ten just by switching to cooking oil. Such a vehicle produces only slightly more emissions (still less than, say, that Tahoe your mom uses to get the groceries) and is now practically free to operate. And also the exhaust smells like MacDonald's.
I did. I think running your diesel car on cooking oil is a good way to vote with your dollar though, and a damn sight better for the environment than filling up at the pump
No, actually it's worse for the environment than using regular old diesel.
I did. I think running your diesel car on cooking oil is a good way to vote with your dollar though, and a damn sight better for the environment (and more cost-effective) than filling up at the pump.
Consider that a diesel VW gets around 50mpg, and that number goes up by about ten just by switching to cooking oil. Such a vehicle produces only slightly more emissions (still less than, say, that Tahoe your mom uses to get the groceries) and is now practically free to operate. And also the exhaust smells like MacDonald's.
You're going to have to backup your claim that Cooking oil is better for the environment than existing biofuels (read: corn-based Ethanol. I think we can leave sugar-cane based ethanol out, as we can't produce that in the States or Canada).
I'm primarily interested in knowing if it actually provides a positive energy return.
I did. I think running your diesel car on cooking oil is a good way to vote with your dollar though, and a damn sight better for the environment (and more cost-effective) than filling up at the pump.
Consider that a diesel VW gets around 50mpg, and that number goes up by about ten just by switching to cooking oil. Such a vehicle produces only slightly more emissions (still less than, say, that Tahoe your mom uses to get the groceries) and is now practically free to operate. And also the exhaust smells like MacDonald's.
You're going to have to backup your claim that Cooking oil is better for the environment than existing biofuels (read: corn-based Ethanol. I think we can leave sugar-cane based ethanol out, as we can't produce that in the States or Canada).
I'm primarily interested in knowing if it actually provides a positive energy return.
Compared to regular oil? Probably. The supply chain is much shorter and you don't have to blow the tops off mountains to get at it. You just have to call up a local fast-food joint and ask if you can have some of their spent cooking oil.
I did. I think running your diesel car on cooking oil is a good way to vote with your dollar though, and a damn sight better for the environment (and more cost-effective) than filling up at the pump.
Consider that a diesel VW gets around 50mpg, and that number goes up by about ten just by switching to cooking oil. Such a vehicle produces only slightly more emissions (still less than, say, that Tahoe your mom uses to get the groceries) and is now practically free to operate. And also the exhaust smells like MacDonald's.
You're going to have to backup your claim that Cooking oil is better for the environment than existing biofuels (read: corn-based Ethanol. I think we can leave sugar-cane based ethanol out, as we can't produce that in the States or Canada).
I'm primarily interested in knowing if it actually provides a positive energy return.
Compared to regular oil? Probably. The supply chain is much shorter and you don't have to blow the tops off mountains to get at it
Where does the energy to produce your cooking oil come from? How much of that energy going in is preserved coming out at the pump? What are the pricing effects on the various commodities that are used to create this oil, and how does that impact agflation. Etc.
We've gone over this in this very thread. Biofuels suck. Horribly. They're roughly the equivalent to making your car run on the tears of Indians.
Compared to regular oil? Probably. The supply chain is much shorter and you don't have to blow the tops off mountains to get at it. You just have to call up a local fast-food joint and ask if you can have some of their spent cooking oil.
It works on a very limited basis, and only if you're willing to drive around and get it and make an investment the equipment required to refine it... assuming some other guy hasn't gotten there first. It's not a solution for most, and shouldn't be advertised otherwise.
I did. I think running your diesel car on cooking oil is a good way to vote with your dollar though, and a damn sight better for the environment (and more cost-effective) than filling up at the pump.
Consider that a diesel VW gets around 50mpg, and that number goes up by about ten just by switching to cooking oil. Such a vehicle produces only slightly more emissions (still less than, say, that Tahoe your mom uses to get the groceries) and is now practically free to operate. And also the exhaust smells like MacDonald's.
You're going to have to backup your claim that Cooking oil is better for the environment than existing biofuels (read: corn-based Ethanol. I think we can leave sugar-cane based ethanol out, as we can't produce that in the States or Canada).
I'm primarily interested in knowing if it actually provides a positive energy return.
Compared to regular oil? Probably. The supply chain is much shorter and you don't have to blow the tops off mountains to get at it
Where does the energy to produce your cooking oil come from? How much of that energy going in is preserved coming out at the pump? What are the pricing effects on the various commodities that are used to create this oil, and how does that impact agflation. Etc.
We've gone over this in this very thread. Biofuels suck. Horribly. They're roughly the equivalent to making your car run on the tears of Indians.
The current selection is pretty bad, but there are some possibly viable ones in the future. Particularly algae based and celluosic ethanol.
Compared to regular oil? Probably. The supply chain is much shorter and you don't have to blow the tops off mountains to get at it. You just have to call up a local fast-food joint and ask if you can have some of their spent cooking oil.
Firstly, I don't believe it would even work without destroying an engine. I'm open to counterarguement. Assuredly since it is such a cheap and easy alternative to gasoline, you've already made the change yourself, right? Care to elaborate on the process?
Second, do you realize that even if this were a legitimate fuel alternative (and I don't believe it is), that it would never work on a large scale? 1 guy using spent oil to power his experimental engine is one thing. 250 million people doing so is a whole 'nother ballgame logistically.
I did. I think running your diesel car on cooking oil is a good way to vote with your dollar though, and a damn sight better for the environment (and more cost-effective) than filling up at the pump.
Consider that a diesel VW gets around 50mpg, and that number goes up by about ten just by switching to cooking oil. Such a vehicle produces only slightly more emissions (still less than, say, that Tahoe your mom uses to get the groceries) and is now practically free to operate. And also the exhaust smells like MacDonald's.
You're going to have to backup your claim that Cooking oil is better for the environment than existing biofuels (read: corn-based Ethanol. I think we can leave sugar-cane based ethanol out, as we can't produce that in the States or Canada).
I'm primarily interested in knowing if it actually provides a positive energy return.
Compared to regular oil? Probably. The supply chain is much shorter and you don't have to blow the tops off mountains to get at it
Where does the energy to produce your cooking oil come from? How much of that energy going in is preserved coming out at the pump? What are the pricing effects on the various commodities that are used to create this oil, and how does that impact agflation. Etc.
We've gone over this in this very thread. Biofuels suck. Horribly. They're roughly the equivalent to making your car run on the tears of Indians.
The current selection is pretty bad, but there are some possibly viable ones in the future. Particularly algae based and celluosic ethanol.
Sure, but he suggested that we had profitable alternatives to petroleum right now. And leading among these miracle fuels is cooking oil. Well, that's wrong. On both counts.
Right now we don't have alternatives to oil, that's why things suck. It's also why we need to start pushing to get those alternatives from 10 years down the road to in your tank at the moment. The tank that you rarely have to fill thanks to living in a walkable neighborhood with comprehensive public transit, I might add. Cellulosic ethanol may well turn into one of the key ingredients of our new energy cocktail, but that isn't the case right now nor is it likely to be in the very near future. It's also an argument for funding research, but not subsidising ConAgra to make people believe that a hummer can run on creamed corn all while improving the environment.
Compared to regular oil? Probably. The supply chain is much shorter and you don't have to blow the tops off mountains to get at it. You just have to call up a local fast-food joint and ask if you can have some of their spent cooking oil.
Firstly, I don't believe it would even work without destroying an engine. I'm open to counterarguement. Assuredly since it is such a cheap and easy alternative to gasoline, you've already made the change yourself, right? Care to elaborate on the process?
It works. It isn't a replacement for gasoline. It's a replacement for diesel.
Posts
I ask for some time in order to get the information on the exact ratios between oil and the alternatives, but from my small amount of research into hydrogen is that it is extremely difficult to store it, and I have a difficult time of determining the problems that may arises when we try to base calculations on numbers that, as of yet, don't exist.
I mean, you are missing some of the basics about energy matters here. It's sort of hard to argue with you with such misconceptions.
You're right, only 90% of everything we depend on depends on petrolium in one way or another.
Nuclear fission is certainly a middle term solution. Expensive and unpopular with the general populace, with notable drawbacks, but not nearly as problematic concerning climate change as coal. We have enough thorium especially to last for quite a while. We're getting better at reducing the long term radioactive waste, though it's by far it's biggest drawback, apart from the security risk.
Fusion is even better. It basicly runs of Li(6), which is 7% of a substance currently having a market price of around $90 / pound. (How expensive purification is I don't know, but you don't need that much for nuclear reactors anyway) The technology needed for it is expensive and not ready, but if you say "the next 5 years of research, which should produce a net power gain for the first time, cost about 40 million barrels of oil", it already sounds a lot better. There is no long term radioactive waste, though the reaction chamber will be radioactive, with a projected century or so. No huge security risk either, if something breaks down there's no cascade reaction, it powers down if the containment chamber fails.
It is somewhat outdated, posted in 2005, I'll look for a more up to date one soon. Back then it is still a large majority of what we consume.
Savant, could you possibly enlighten me on how energy works, these basics that I seem to be missing. From my understanding of it, is that the vehicles we use require oil to power them, we then use those vehicles to transfer food, harvest resources such as coal and nuclear materials, with additional uses of the oil in creating the pesticides and fertilizer which gives us the food we eat. etc. Am I missing the logic of economics where supply curbs the demand? What happens when you can't lower the demand beyond a certain point and the supply drops below that?
For every possible thing you make with oil, you can also use an alternative, either a comparable product, or just chemistry and recreate the fraction of oil you badly need. Problem is, that's expensive, way more expensive then oil at the moment. Oil does not consist out of some magical molecules, it's just convenient long hydrocarbons, with a lot of stored energy.
Cars can run on hydrogen, that much is clear right now. A lot of work is being done in making it more attractive (cheaper, simpler, lighter), but it's possible. A switch from petrol to hydrogen cars worldwide is going to cost a hell of lot of money, but chances are it'll happen in our lifetime, because we really haven't got much of a choice (As long as batteries don't get massively better).
What we really need is a solution for the energy, and while those exist too, they all carry with them downsides in cost, enviromental, availability, and public opinion, so they are not being pursued yet.
The keys here are supply response and demand response. Supply response has a fairly straightforward component: price is going up, so you try to go and drill more oil. Oil that was previously uneconomical to extract becomes economical to extract. Also, this has a promotive effect on alternatives. Simple example: if you could make fuel out of shit at the equivalent of 5 dollars a gallon, you wouldn't start making fuel out of shit until gas hit 5 dollars a gallon or so.
The main implication of peak oil is this: at a certain point supply becomes increasingly inelastic, and contrary to typical supply/demand after a certain point in time supply will decrease in elasticity rather than increase as supply goes down. In other words, the quantity of oil produced will become less sensitive to price changes as there is only so much oil you can drill only so easily. This inelasticity doesn't necessarily translate to inelasticity in alternatives to oil.
However, there is the demand response side of the equation to. The simple demand response is conservation, use less. Go on less trips, drive less, use public transportation, and so forth. This also has effects on correlated energy markets, such as electricity, which promote conservation there. Longer term demand response is switching over to alternatives, or to have a higher focus on efficiency. Buying more fuel efficient cars, even if they cost more upfront. Also, another long term response is changing living habits and location, such as by moving closer to where you work.
Now, a common feature of the paranoia side of peak oil is an assumption that market collapse is imminent as a result of this. Market collapse is possible, but I find it doubtful that it will occur simply as a result of peak oil, UNLESS the onset is too rapid for the long term responses to appropriately kick in. If you wake up tomorrow morning and gas is $20 a gallon, the shit hits the fan. However, if it takes 20 years for that to happen and the market can see it coming, then there is time to adapt. Standard of living could definitely go down, but there are a lot of low hanging fruit in terms of behavioral adjustments to offset the burden caused by increasing energy prices. And reducing demand has a downward pressure on prices.
Also note that I haven't mentioned government intervention yet. Government intervention can be beneficial if it forces the markets towards long term goals over short term goals. However, it is often detrimental. See: corn based ethanol.
Of course, and it's being done. Many car companies have switched to plant-based plastics for car bodies.
Technically, I think you can make them from any organic substance. It's just that it is a lot cheaper to get corn plastics than hunt down endangered whales to make plastic.
This post is funny/pathetic on just one level - you must be borderline illiterate to get any of that from my post. You're a much bigger tinfoil hat looney than I could ever be. Stupidity, naivite, and pompous douchebaggery all in one post. You're a real winner, guy. I'm the one looking down on you shaking my head, guy. Grow up and learn how to read/address somebody's post validly, not spout a bunch of stupid half-witted "counterpoints." Go to the patent office and look up who owns all of the alternative energy idea patents. Go ahead. There's no conspiracy theory - just common sense. Which you lack if you're actually dumb enough to take issue with anything I posted. Go re-take High School History and Economics. We'll wait.
I've asked for patent numbers on two seperate occasions in this thread and am still waiting.
Not a number, but it's about the key batteries for electric car s.
Have fun - I've filed no patents myself, so I can't help you there. If you find any, let us know, though - it'd be interesting to see proof rather than have to rely on plain old probability and common sense. Try reading up on... well, pretty much anything in the meantime.
Hey, dumfucks - stop claiming I'm "insisting" on anything - the fact that I wouldn't be surprised if someone was sitting on patents doesn't mean I'm claiming it must be true. Learn to fucking read. :rolleyes:
Things this post is doing wrong:
Insulting people who were perfectly polite to you.
Claiming that repeating a claim multiple times without expanding upon it in any substantial way is not "insisting."
Claiming a non-substantiated opinion is a fact. Then claiming that because it's an opinion it doesn't have to be true (but if you disbelieve it, you're a 'dumbfuck'.)
I don't have any problem with most of the stuff you're saying but please stop being a dick to everyone and calm down your rhetoric.
What you're doing is making a claim, telling me to look for proof to back up your claim, then acting like everything is just fine.
Being apathetic about this will not work. Waiting for oil companies to decide to stop drilling will not work. Everyone has to vote with their money, by buying fuel efficient cars and using public transit, and make the alternatives appear profitable to energy companies, so that they will start to explore those alternatives. Because right now all their accountants are seeing is 300 million Americans happily filling the tanks of their 20 mile per gallon piece of shit domestic SUVs with expensive gasoline.
Which would those be?
Did you miss the pages about how godawful bio-fuels are? If you're going to pretend that we have useful and useable alternatives right now at least point to nuclear or something.
Consider that a diesel VW gets around 50mpg, and that number goes up by about ten just by switching to cooking oil. Such a vehicle produces only slightly more emissions (still less than, say, that Tahoe your mom uses to get the groceries) and is now practically free to operate. And also the exhaust smells like MacDonald's.
No, actually it's worse for the environment than using regular old diesel.
No, but seriously, fission is the path forward. However, there are legitimate obstacles that stand in its way.
You're going to have to backup your claim that Cooking oil is better for the environment than existing biofuels (read: corn-based Ethanol. I think we can leave sugar-cane based ethanol out, as we can't produce that in the States or Canada).
I'm primarily interested in knowing if it actually provides a positive energy return.
Where does the energy to produce your cooking oil come from? How much of that energy going in is preserved coming out at the pump? What are the pricing effects on the various commodities that are used to create this oil, and how does that impact agflation. Etc.
We've gone over this in this very thread. Biofuels suck. Horribly. They're roughly the equivalent to making your car run on the tears of Indians.
The current selection is pretty bad, but there are some possibly viable ones in the future. Particularly algae based and celluosic ethanol.
Firstly, I don't believe it would even work without destroying an engine. I'm open to counterarguement. Assuredly since it is such a cheap and easy alternative to gasoline, you've already made the change yourself, right? Care to elaborate on the process?
Second, do you realize that even if this were a legitimate fuel alternative (and I don't believe it is), that it would never work on a large scale? 1 guy using spent oil to power his experimental engine is one thing. 250 million people doing so is a whole 'nother ballgame logistically.
Sure, but he suggested that we had profitable alternatives to petroleum right now. And leading among these miracle fuels is cooking oil. Well, that's wrong. On both counts.
Right now we don't have alternatives to oil, that's why things suck. It's also why we need to start pushing to get those alternatives from 10 years down the road to in your tank at the moment. The tank that you rarely have to fill thanks to living in a walkable neighborhood with comprehensive public transit, I might add. Cellulosic ethanol may well turn into one of the key ingredients of our new energy cocktail, but that isn't the case right now nor is it likely to be in the very near future. It's also an argument for funding research, but not subsidising ConAgra to make people believe that a hummer can run on creamed corn all while improving the environment.