NationStates Jolt Archive

The main uses of oil are power and cars, right?

Power: Coal, gas, nuclear. End of story.
Cars: I've heard of many ways to replace petroleum, that have just been bought out by oil companies. When oil runs out, we'll just revert to one of those, right?

*waits for someone smarter to absolutely crush my arguments*

Think of industry. While I can't pull lots of links out of myself to prove you wrong, cars are not the main consumer of oil.

*waits for contradiction*

The main uses of oil are power and cars, right?

Power: Coal, gas, nuclear. End of story.
Cars: I've heard of many ways to replace petroleum, that have just been bought out by oil companies. When oil runs out, we'll just revert to one of those, right?

*waits for someone smarter to absolutely crush my arguments*

You kinda sorta forgot plastics though :)

You kinda sorta forgot plastics though :)

What about plastics?

I read once that historically, the price of commodities tends to fall. Improved technology tends to increase the effieciency of extraction faster than demand typically, and in the event that a given commodity becomes too scarce or unreliable in its supply to meet industrial demands, then new methods come into play that do not require it.

Bunker Hunt found this out to his cost.

What about plastics?

They are hydrocarbon based.

...and petrochemicals in general. Medicine, plastics, pesticides, etc...

I'm too tired to get into it right now, but I'll crush your arguments tomorrow. In the meantime, if you have the courage read this: www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com

Read teh whole thing. It goes into so called alternatives, petrodollars, etc...

They are hydrocarbon based.

I'll assume that means that they're oil-base.

Isn't there ANYTHING else plastic can be made of?

I read once that historically, the price of commodities tends to fall. Improved technology tends to increase the effieciency of extraction faster than demand typically, and in the event that a given commodity becomes too scarce or unreliable in its supply to meet industrial demands, then new methods come into play that do not require it.
*cranks oil valve, thus constricting the flow of oil*

http://www.frozenreality.co.uk/comic/bunny/strips/080206.gif

What about plastics?
They're made of oil. Generally speaking, if you see teh word "synthetic" in the name of something, that usually means its made out of oil.

*cranks oil valve, thus constricting the flow of oil*

Well sure. There are always going to be fluctuations and temporary dislocations, but if we knew for sure that oil was going to be $300 a barrel from now on minimum, don't you think that nuclear plants would start going up at an enourmous rate?

And oil is not the only pre-cursor for plastics and medicines, it's just the cheapest.

Solve the energy problem however, and the rest of it takes care of itself.

(Hell we could have probably achieved fusion reactors by now if it had been properly funded, the government has always just tended to go for quick fixes instead).

Think of industry. While I can't pull lots of links out of myself to prove you wrong, cars are not the main consumer of oil.

*waits for contradiction*

Actually, they are a surprisingly large proportion. However, we're yet to apply anything commercially other than oil to trucks or planes for that matter. That's where the REAL problem lies - in the distribution networks. We COULD live without cars quite easily - I virtually do (mum and/or mates give me lifts every now and then).

The real problem lies in retrofitting the infrastructure, which would take two decades for the US at crash course rates of implementation.

There's been a study done about that.

Other problems: certain parts of fertiliser are derived from oil. Plastics have been mentioned.

The primary problem is distribution networks.

Jaques Derrida: that'll only apply as long as available energy keeps increasing. If it declines (as oil is set to in the disturbingly near future) the theory will turn on its head until it reaches a stablilsing point (which could be anything up to a century from now.

Well sure. There are always going to be fluctuations and temporary dislocations, but if we knew for sure that oil was going to be $300 a barrel from now on minimum, don't you think that nuclear plants would start going up at an enourmous rate?

And oil is not the only pre-cursor for plastics and medicines, it's just the cheapest.

Solve the energy problem however, and the rest of it takes care of itself.

(Hell we could have probably achieved fusion reactors by now if it had been properly funded, the government has always just tended to go for quick fixes instead).

Yay for the easy way out, leading into a difficult way in.

As for the two decades of crash coursing, I doubt it. In America, at least. As long as it's marketed correctly, and seems like the trendy thing to do, Americans can adapt to any environment. Ads going up all over the place for change in favor of ways people can adapt to implementations of a new energy source would extensively take care of the motivational aspect.

Report on Peak Oil for the U.S. Department Of Energy (http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf)

Solve the energy problem however, and the rest of it takes care of itself.
Yup. Until then, we're just going to have to rage against it. Despite the fact that corporations tote the line "we're risk takers", cartels such as OPEC won't be too willing to give much of an inch and will milk oil until we're back in the 18th century. There is no motive to "solve the energy" problem at the moment in the US political system, unless one is just looking for votes. I want something more than hyrdogen (impractical) and solar power (unreliable). Last time I was in the States, the only people that we're pro nuclear were the ones that knew what they were talking about, enviornmentalists. It'll take quite some time.
We COULD live without cars quite easily - I virtually do (mum and/or mates give me lifts every now and then).
In America, no. Reliable mass transportation is only present in cities with populations above five million. Eliminating cars would require city planners to totally reconstruct eveything. Urban sprawl would have to be contained, and this would require redevelopment of the inner city, in every city. That is not talking about where "those people" live either, I'm talking about the abandoned industrial centers in the Rust Belt. All businesses have moved out of the city, to the highways, and thus people's live are highly decentricised with them working on one end of the city, picking their kids up in the middle shopping on the other end, and then living somewhere off the map. Taking the car out of the picture equals next to instant depression. My city is finally taking steps to achieve this, but the majority of realators (sp?) don't have enough foresight to actually achieve that.

Many of our industries are from WWII as well. on the whole, most of the job loses in the industrial areas of the US come from upgrading this machinery nowadays, and not moving jobs overseas. Its cheaper for industry to keep the old machines running than purchase new, but this on the idea that they milk these for all they're worth, built more modern factoires abroad, and then shut down US operations. However, those are just local industries where I come from. That is to say, we're not as bad as China. They're still building factories by the 1940's specs. We're not as wasteful with engergy either. The big oil crunch is comming from China industrializing, its not the US. While consumtion has gone up in the US its a fraction of what has occured in China.
The real problem lies in retrofitting the infrastructure, which would take two decades for the US at crash course rates of implementation.
Above.
The primary problem is distribution networks.
What about rewarding innovation? I'm sure that is a factor as well.

The big oil crunch is comming from China industrializing, its not the US. While consumtion has gone up in the US its a fraction of what has occured in China.

One out of every four barrels of oil produced is burned in the US.

Cars: I've heard of many ways to replace petroleum, that have just been bought out by oil companies. When oil runs out, we'll just revert to one of those, right?



Like buggy and whip ... it'll be awesome!

Cars: I've heard of many ways to replace petroleum, that have just been bought out by oil companies. That's just conspiracy talk. There isn't an easy replacement source for the energy we need. The much revered hydrogen is in fact not a source of energy, because we can't mine it or pump it up, we have to make it ourselves. And that costs more energy than we can get out of it later.
Biofuels is another candidate, but growing crops just to make fuel from them isn't a very good answer. For one we'd limit the amount of area we have to grow food. And secondly the area is limited period.
Nuclear energy won't help very much either, considering fissionable material is as limited as oil. It's good for a few decades though.

In any case, it's not a trivial problem

One out of every four barrels of oil produced is burned in the US.
China's upsetting the status quo. That's the point. Sad, but true.

That doesn't contradict my statement by the way.

Yup. Until then, we're just going to have to rage against it. Despite the fact that corporations tote the line "we're risk takers", cartels such as OPEC won't be too willing to give much of an inch and will milk oil until we're back in the 18th century. There is no motive to "solve the energy" problem at the moment in the US political system, unless one is just looking for votes. I want something more than hyrdogen (impractical) and solar power (unreliable). Last time I was in the States, the only people that we're pro nuclear were the ones that knew what they were talking about, enviornmentalists. It'll take quite some time.


Indeed. Historically, established corporations have never been risk takers, quite the opposite. They are also self-destructively short sighted, and are quite prepared to ride their industries to bankruptcy, for the benefit of the few at the top.

Some environmentalists are pro-nuclear. But on the whole, the environmentalists movement has become a drag on the whole debate. Alternative energy has become a code-word for 'no-energy'. Anything that is offered is usually rejected on the barest of pretenses. It's basically just angry young men these days - at least the most vocal element anyway. And as I've said before, alternative energy has been just around the corner for four decades, and nothing spectacular has come out of it. Nuclear on the other hand has showed, steady, if slow improvements. If anything, the environmental movement's biggest contribution has been to the oil companies, by resisting so fiercly any change of the status quo.

I do think that now is the time, while we still have breathing space to comfortably do something about it. Wanna bet no-one will run on that platform though?

Indeed. Historically, established corporations have never been risk takers, quite the opposite. They are also self-destructively short sighted, and are quite prepared to ride their industries to bankruptcy, for the benefit of the few at the top.

Some environmentalists are pro-nuclear. But on the whole, the environmentalists movement has become a drag on the whole debate. Alternative energy has become a code-word for 'no-energy'. Anything that is offered is usually rejected on the barest of pretenses. It's basically just angry young men these days - at least the most vocal element anyway. And as I've said before, alternative energy has been just around the corner for four decades, and nothing spectacular has come out of it. Nuclear on the other hand has showed, steady, if slow improvements. If anything, the environmental movement's biggest contribution has been to the oil companies, by resisting so fiercly any change of the status quo.

I do think that now is the time, while we still have breathing space to comfortably do something about it. Wanna bet no-one will run on that platform though?

Jacques ... we meet again!

Jacques ... we meet again!

Ah. Bon Chance M'sieu :)

Ah. Bon Chance M'sieu :)

tres bien mon ami!

Some environmentalists are pro-nuclear. But on the whole, the environmentalists movement has become a drag on the whole debate. Alternative energy has become a code-word for 'no-energy'...I do think that now is the time, while we still have breathing space to comfortably do something about it. Wanna bet no-one will run on that platform though?
I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy. The coal in the States comes from mines that have a high ammount of uranium in them, and so, our coal power plants are producing more nuclear pollution than a nuclear power plant would. They're also being less productive.

No-one will run on the platform, unfortunatly. This oil problem is bigger than terrorism, and just a little under a wide spread modern bubonic plague. I'd like to see more nuclear power plants in the US. With help from the French even.

Which, you might be. :p

I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy. The coal in the States comes from mines that have a high ammount of uranium in them, and so, our coal power plants are producing more nuclear pollution than a nuclear power plant would. They're also being less productive.

No-one will run on the platform, unfortunatly. This oil problem is bigger than terrorism, and just a little under a wide spread modern bubonic plague. I'd like to see more nuclear power plants in the US. With help from the French even.

Which, you might be. :p

Nah. I'm not french. (I'm going to normandy next month though :D)

At some point the US is going to have to tackle this however, or be relegated to second world status. The UK seems to be realizing this, and the french are well on their way.

It just seems like willful blindness that holds other countries back.

Well sure. There are always going to be fluctuations and temporary dislocations, but if we knew for sure that oil was going to be $300 a barrel from now on minimum, don't you think that nuclear plants would start going up at an enourmous rate?

And oil is not the only pre-cursor for plastics and medicines, it's just the cheapest.

Solve the energy problem however, and the rest of it takes care of itself.

(Hell we could have probably achieved fusion reactors by now if it had been properly funded, the government has always just tended to go for quick fixes instead).

Of only we only relied on oil for energy.

I'll assume that means that they're oil-base.

Isn't there ANYTHING else plastic can be made of?
No, there isn't. There's been a few attempts, but they haven't come to anything.

Bah, the UK can't even look after an oil deport, I don't wanna see it with a nuclear power plant

Bah, the UK can't even look after an oil deport, I don't wanna see it with a nuclear power plant
We have a bunch of them and (unlike three mile island) they're all in working order.

Bah, the UK can't even look after an oil deport, I don't wanna see it with a nuclear power plant

How would an oil deport be significantly harder to manage than a nuclear power plant? 1000s of tonnes of oil all of which could explode isn't as easy to manage as you're making it out to be.