[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 333x500, smile809.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3874121 No.3874121 [Reply] [Original]

Why don't we just stop using oil/coal?

>> No.3874128

Cause other sources of energy are too expensive. Unless you read too much sci fi pretending to understand science.

>> No.3874139

It's still the cheapest thing we have because it externalizes most of its cost.

>> No.3874140

>>3874128
You have been brainwashed by the oil corporations.

>> No.3874154

>>3874140

You have been brainwashed by Hollywood. Such as that movie Wall Street:Money never sleeps.

Using laser to heat up sea water? What the hell! The energy it produces can never be enough to pay for that which the laser demands.

>> No.3874156

>>3874128

yeah! Don't you know about liquid thorium flouride reactors?

>> No.3874167

>>3874154
Have you ever watch the inconvenient truth faggot?

>> No.3874173

>>3874167

:O You mean that politician turned entrepeneur that gets sued by scientists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

>> No.3874182

BOTH OF YOU ARE BRAINWASHED. One of you might be right ofcourse but theres no point arguing about it.

Your answer OP is somewhere between these two mindsets. They won't stop because it would be a financial tragedy to and also because there's no practical replacement anytime good enough

>> No.3874204

>>3874173
> scientist

>right wing old idiot.

>> No.3874215

Because its still the cheapest and most portable energy source. Once it starts to run out we will switch.

>> No.3874227

>>3874215
It is already running out, and you think we will just switch?

>> No.3874243

>>3874139

actual intelligence on /sci

>> No.3874250

>>3874182
> BOTH OF YOU ARE BRAINWASHED
I didn't know Herman Cain posted in /sci/.

>> No.3874281

>>3874227

Most of it is stored. The oil and gas industry is a sneaky beast. They promote using alternative fuels just to make the supplies of oil last longer, by claiming we are running out so they can charge more for it. BP discovered 3 trillion barrels worth of oil in the gulf of Mexico in 2009, they've not even started drilling for it yet.
Former NDT tech here, I've seen it all first hand I know how the industry works, hence former tech.

>> No.3874300

>>3874281

in during the oil industry turns into the diamond industry, except we are actually required to buy said diamonds to function.

personally im just waiting for the diamond industry to collapse so we can all have diamond edged and tipped knives and tools.

>> No.3874293

>>3874281
>The United States Energy Information Administration predicted in 2006 that world consumption of oil will increase to 98.3 million barrels per day (15,630,000 m3/d) (mbd) in 2015 and 118 mbd in 2030.[6] With 2009 world oil consumption at 84.4 mbd,[7] reaching the projected 2015 level of consumption would represent an average annual increase between 2009 and 2015 of 2.7% per year while EIA's own figures show declining consumption[7] and declining supplies[8] during the 2005-2009 period.

>> No.3874302

yeah we could use eletric and alcohol, they're not that expensive

>> No.3874309

>>3874227

Nope, there is still a lot of oil left, at least a few decades of cheap oil.

>> No.3874313

>>3874293

3,000,000,000,000 barrels in one untapped site alone, consumed at 118 million a day making 43.07 billion barrels a year.

that will last almost 70 fucking years.

>> No.3874322

>>3874313
Amount of oil isn't the only factor, it's also the ease of which it can be acquired.

>> No.3874334

>>3874322

it is still 70 years worth of oil in a single undrilled spot

>> No.3874347

We'll never "run out" of fossil fuels. They'll just become more expensive than the alternatives, and then we'll stop mining them.

>> No.3874371

>>3874347
Or it will become cheapee to produce them.

>> No.3874480

There are about 1 billion internal combustion engines on the planet for one of many reasons.
Are you just going to pull their replacement out of your arse?

>> No.3874497

>>3874281
> BP discovered 3 trillion barrels worth of oil in the gulf of Mexico in 2009, they've not even started drilling for it yet.

You are one lying-assed motherfucker:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a44RUTBIl_3Q

"Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc, Europe’s second-largest oil company, reported a “giant” discovery at the Tiber Prospect in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico that may contain more than 3 billion barrels, after drilling the world’s deepest exploration well."

You're off by three orders of magnitude, you stupid bastard.

>> No.3874513

i say we outlaw high fructose corn syrup. its poison, firstoff and our government needs to stop subsidising it and putting it in everything.

The backlash will be profitability being available only as ethanol. now we have all the shitty corn turned into something we actually need and not diabetes.

>> No.3874549

>>3874121

Because we spent the last hundred years spending trillions in infrastructure development, subsidies, tax benefits and unclaimed royalties in order to promote this industry, as well as spin-off industries such as cement production, automobiles, and airplanes.

Originally, the EROI for oil especially but all fossil fuels in general was >100, thus making it a superb source of energy for our industrial purposes. Furthermore, liquid fuels derived from oil are so energy-dense that they are unmatched by anything other than hypothetical lithium-air batteries. This allowed fossil fuels to outcompete other energy sources early on in the industrial revolution, and people were not yet cognizant of the fact that one day supply of these fuels would one day outstrip demand. Thus, governments all over the world have always subsidized these industries and continue to do so.

Now that we are aware of peak oil, climate change, and various kinds of air pollution, in theory we should do a costs-benefits analysis and choose the rational choice (i.e. switching to other forms of energy). However, path dependence based on over a century of fossil fuel reliance means that we must replace huge swathes of infrastructure for this to work, and the industry itself will fight tooth and nail to protect its interests against the interests of the common good.

tl;dr, 1) fossil fuels were too useful for our own good, 2) the industry has powerful financial and political influence which is wielded to protect the status quo, and 3) path dependence due to historical patterns of energy consumption and production

>> No.3874552

>>3874497

We have 2 sources

The poster and bloomberg, either could have made a factual mistake, and while I tend to consider bloomburg a more credible source, we really should get a 3rd source before making accusations.

>> No.3874556

“In terms of non-OPEC [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel]“, he replied, “we are expecting that in three, four years’ time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. … In terms of the global picture, assuming that OPEC will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is of course not good news from a global oil supply point of view.”

Source 1: http://www.monbiot.com/2008/12/15/at-last-a-date/
Source 2: International Energy Agency, 2008. World Energy Outlook 2008, page 43. IEA, Paris.

>> No.3874562

>>3874513
I agree with you but not for the same fucking retarded reasons. HFC tastes fucking awful compared to cane sugar.

>> No.3874570

>>3874513
Ethanol is not a good power source. We would do better to convert the corn into oil.

>> No.3874582

>>3874556

This dorsnt take into account oil sands, such as the north dakota oil boom going on righy now. They forcast 2trillion barrels just in the united states.

>> No.3874584

>>3874570
1/3 of the US corn crop is already earmarked for fructose sugar

for the record, it's junk corn and not fit for human consumption, although it is also used in pet food and other animal feeds

>> No.3874593

>>3874173

As far as I know Al Gore has won all the lawsuits against him, and he has no criminal convictions of which I am aware.

Also some random TV weatherman =/= 30,000 scientists, an absurd figure that probably has its roots in the completely discredited Oregon Petition. Nor can you "settle the global warming debate once and for all" via lawsuits against someone who is not even a scientist or if 30,0000 mixology PhDs signed petitions.

Also

>http://www.prisonplanet.com/oil-companies-support-global-warming-alarmists-not-skeptics.html

>prisonplanet.com

Hmmm.

>> No.3874598

>>3874582
I don't have the figures at hand at the moment, but that "trillions" of barrels is another pie in the sky, not to mention the unbelievable ecological damage and the ground water consumption

I'll hunt around, I have some more realistic figures in a folder on this machine someplace

>> No.3874601

>>3874480

methane?

get it....?

>> No.3874614

>>3874584
that does not address my comment. A company like cool planet bio fuels can turn the corn into a better fuel than ethanol.

>> No.3874619

>>3874593
this just points up the fact that this anti-climate change BS is a publicity stunt. Gore shared his Nobel Physics prize with the 1,500 scientists who signed the IPCC report.

>> No.3874624
File: 99 KB, 407x640, HFC_is_bad_mmkay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3874624

>>3874562
>>3874562
>>3874562

You should agree with him for the same reasons (and also that it tastes like shit).

Fructose doesn't have to be phosphorylated as many times as glucose, skipping key regulatory steps in glycolysis. HFC makes you a fat fuck faster than glucose because your body has no choice but to chemically funnel it down into Acetyl-CoA. Acetyl-CoA then gets quickly stored as fat when you aren't running a fucking marathon (most are just coke-drinking retards sitting on the couch).

>> No.3874628

>>3874614
I didn't intend to address your point directly - my contribution was just an "oh, lookee at this factoid." the more you know, etc.

but it's not like America is going to stop drinking Coke overnight anyway

>> No.3874651

>>3874598
Perhaps it is unattainable. But production in north dakota is matching projections, im sure a few morw years will give us something more accurate to look at.
>>3874624
But hfcs is a sucrose replacement not glucose
>>3874628
>mmy appologies, I misread the intent of your statement

>> No.3874670

>>3874651
well, on the fracking question, has anybody here actually looked at the distillation process? Tar oil is heavy heavy oil, the worst of the worst, and requires multiple passes through the refining pipeline (no pun intended). It takes ten years to build a new refinery, every refinery in America is already running at full production, and it's a minimum of two years to upgrade an existing medium weight refinery to handle something as vile as tar sands.

You are not going to see any major production at the pump for years and years.tar"

>> No.3874677

>>3874651

What? It's fructose. Sucrose is a disaccharide made of glucose and fructose.

HFC is just all fructose, the monosaccharide. Your body processes it very fast compared to sucrose.

>> No.3874707

>>3874670
Refinary limitations have been a known problem for years, the theory is it helps keep prices high. Perhaps they will build new ones eventually.
>>3874677
Hfcs is 55%fructose 45% glucose. Very similar in makeup to sucrose. And the one extra bound in sucrose is so weak I dont think there is much of a difference digestionwise

>> No.3874737

why dont we use maglev trains?

>> No.3874751

>>3874139
Thread shouldn't have gone beyond this point, a clear and succinct answer

>oil scarcity hurr
We had a couple of trillion barrels of utilized oil wells in 2000 when everyone was saying oil would run out by 2010
We have since discovered:
1. About 2 trillion barrels in the Canadian oil sands and we haven't started to use that yet
2. 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil in the Green River Formation alone (more than 8 trillion in shales across the world)
3. Siberia has trillions of cubic meters of gas (47tril in one deposit), and we're starting to use natural gas now to power ships, cars and trains
And this is with stuff we can extract now, with current technology.

tl;dr we are going to lose our corporeal bodies and ascend to a state of pure energy before we lose the ability to dig up more hydrocarbons for our SUVs

>> No.3874811
File: 397 KB, 1587x2094, Lenton.et.al.2006.fig.9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3874811

>>3874751

>We had a couple of trillion barrels of utilized oil wells in 2000 when everyone was saying oil would run out by 2010

I think this is a big point of confusion which people run up against. Very simply,

PHYSICAL scarcity =/= MARKET scarcity

Of course there is a vast quantity of hydrocarbons locked up in oil shale, tar sands, methane clathrates, and so forth. The problem isn't that there's going to be ZERO oil left, but that demand for oil will outstrip supply, and thus the price will rise beyond levels conducive to growth and stability in society. Piss-poor EROI also makes investment in oil shale and so forth an unwise idea from an engineering efficiency standpoint. The amount of natural gas required to extract oil from tar sands is equal to the amount of gas that could otherwise used to be heat one million homes over the course of a year, not to mention wasting thousands of cubic kilometres of freshwater. Oil shale will almost certainly have an EROI less than 1, if it were to be fully exploited.

For the record, there are energy scholars out there who look at 2010 and say that is indeed the point where we have reached peak oil. Economically, not physically.

Let's say fuck the markets, no one cares about price or knock-on effects on agriculture or other sectors of economy. The only thing we should consider is physical scarcity. How much carbon would be degassed from the tar sands? One trillion? Two trillion? Each metric ton of carbon becomes 3.67 tons of CO2, You could potentially add over 7 fucking trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, on top of the trillion or so tons of additional CO2 that is already projected to be emitted over the course of the 21st century. This would raise CO2 concentrations to over 1200 ppmv, and cause a mass extinction event. If aliens were to visit millions of years from now, and look at our fossil record, their first impression might be that an asteroid hit the Earth or something.

>> No.3874836

>>3874811
This is why I am for the development of technologies that turn trees and algae into fossil fuels. There would be no net increase in atmospheric co2 levels. And if a certain ammount of sequestering were rewuired, we would actually be lowering atmospheric xo2 levels.

>> No.3874861

>>3874121
Millions of jobs would be lost.

>> No.3874868

>>3874836
That will be a lot more expensive than oil is currently, of course, especially if you try to do it sustainably. I'm not actually sure it's even possible to replace ALL of our oil with biofuels.

Also, oil is extra cheap because we aren't even trying to be sustainable. It's being burned many orders of magnitude faster than it is being replaced.

>> No.3874874

>>3874861
It ain't about jobs.

If we wanted to employ people in inefficient ways just to keep them busy, there are simpler timewasters.

>> No.3874879

>>3874868

Actually, at current marjet prices, several companies say it is cheaper for them to produce fuel, than what people are paying. Biofuels have finally become profitable. Ideally as the technology is developed further the poduction cost could even drop.

>> No.3874887

>>3874879
I call bullshit. This point will certainly be crossed, but we are not there yet.

>> No.3874886

>>3874836

Biologists have been bioengineering various bacteria and fungi to try and produce fuels as a byproduct.

>> No.3874902

>>3874887
Hurm, looks like oil went back down when I wasnt paying attention.
100-120 a barrel is the price range we are currently looking at for profitability.

>> No.3874907

>>3874902
You seem to know more than I do about where the crossover point is, but I'm still skeptical about the figure your provide.

100% biofuel is a lot more expensive, because it's sustainable. You have to provide all the energy. With oil, it's just a question of how hard it is to pump it out and refine it.

>> No.3874909

>>3874874
>If we wanted to
>implyijng 'we' are in control

>> No.3874910

>>3874811
>market
OK
I don't think the market for vehicles is going to increase to more than 2.5 billion cars by 2100. That's assuming the world population increases to 10 billion and the vehicle penetrance is 25%, similar to Australia or EU.

Therefore the demand will not go above 8 trillion barrels a year for the next 100 years. So for the foreseeable future, we won't run out of oil or approach scarcity (physical or market).

Please note the following things about the above projection, I overestimated EVERYTHING
1. World population probably won't reach 10 billion, UN says it will balance out at 9 billion by 2050 and start declining to 7 billion by 2100.
2. Demand probably won't go above 6 trillion a year
3. We will find new methods of drilling oil, so more locations will be economically viable
4. This assumes we don't discover another drop

>You could potentially add over 7 fucking trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere
And you aren't counting sequestration or any technology we might discover 100 years from now. Even today we can build wave powered pumps that can sequestrate our entire carbon input a year, we just haven't done it yet because there is no sense of urgency, governments would rather institute a carbon tax and get more delicious monies.

>> No.3874913

>>3874909
What the shit are you talking about?

I'm talking about "we", as in humans.

>> No.3874920

>>3874907
except that we dont pay anything near the cost of drilling. Tradittional oil has a very large profit margin. That makes a difference. Also because biofuel can be done almost anywhere, there is a transportation savings, which while only a small part of the costs, does help.

>> No.3874944
File: 18 KB, 267x320, gordon..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3874944

OP, I don't have the patience to read all of these threads, but in case you're still looking for the right answer; we still use oil and coal because fossil fuels are the most cost effective. We get more energy out of a barrel of oil than we do out of anything else. It's pure economics.

>> No.3874956

>>3874944
Not OP, but I agree.

The question is how quickly rising oil costs are going to make something else cheaper, and what that will be.

>> No.3874974

>>3874956
In the case od automobiles the question isnt about cheaper, instead the question is about efficiency. A tesla roadster with 800lbs of batteries can travel 200miles. A lotus elise with 60lbs of gasoline can travel the same distance.

>> No.3874989

>>3874974
>>3874974
what's your metric of efficiency? Energy conversion efficiency?

>> No.3875000

>>3874173
>>3874173

>attention seeking weathercaster on fox
>scientist

LOLOLOLOLOL

>> No.3875016
File: 60 KB, 700x390, solarpumpedlaser.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3875016

>>3874154
>>laser to heat up seawater
I have no idea what the heck you are referencing, but I assume you are talking about the magnesium economy. In this case you'd use a solar pumped laser to turn MgO to Mg.

>> No.3875017

>>3874910

>I don't think the market for vehicles is going to increase to more than 2.5 billion cars by 2100

Are you kidding me? You've never heard of China or the rest of the BRICs? Globally, car ownership is projected to double from 800 million to 1.6 billion by 2030.

The rest of your numbered points are not plausible based on the faulty assumption that the rising middle class will not want to own cars.

>And you aren't counting sequestration or any technology we might discover 100 years from now.

A technology that doesn't exist yet, might exist 100 years from now, and no one knows how it works or has ever seen it, much less analyzed the economic feasibility, is going to save us?

>Even today we can build wave powered pumps that can sequestrate our entire carbon input a year, we just haven't done it yet because there is no sense of urgency

There probably is another reason. How much do these machines cost to build and operate? How many of these would you need to sequester all 30 gigatons per annum of carbon emissions?

>governments would rather institute a carbon tax and get more delicious monies.

Implying a carbon tax has been implemented anywhere except maybe BC and Australia

Also implying that these wave-powered carbon sequestering machines do not require taxpayer dollars or ETS incentives to work

>> No.3875024

>>3874989

Conversion electric has conventional beat. Tthe problem we have is not in producing the energy, or in using it. Storage is the issue. Gasoline stores more energy than batteries. It is a more efficient means of storing energy.

>> No.3875034
File: 72 KB, 474x501, 1242440845777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3875034

>>3874121
It makes rich people unhappy.

nothing more.

>> No.3875037

>>3874910 25%

Australia has .8 vehicles per person. That would be 80%

>> No.3875038

>>3874910
>5 trillion barrels per year

Whoa. For starters, world oil consumption is 31 BILLION bbl/yr, not trillion (per CIA World Book & the Energy Information Administration

Secondly world production is ~ 32 billion/yr and declining at a rate of 6.7%

you need to bow out of this discussion like last Thursday

@pascal, it COSTS about 1$US to lift a barrel out of the ground and 9$US to process it to grade A petrol. The 120$US figure is the PRICE, which is a function of the commodities markets

>> No.3875041

>>3875024
that has nothing to do with efficiency.

>> No.3875045

>>3875038
these figures do not include misc overhead, capitl equipment depreciation, oil rig & other leases, wages, executive bonuses, etc

>> No.3875056

>>3875038

I know, but weither it cost 10 dollars, or 100 dollars, if it sells for 101 there is profit. And with billions of barrels being sold each year, even a 1 dollar profit makes producing oil sustainable.

>> No.3875061

>>3875056

no argument from me. I just like to keep the proper information out in front

>trillions upon trillions, oh my

>> No.3875063

>>3875041
we are probably using different terms for efficiency.

>> No.3875070

>>3875061
Well thanks, I was running with a guesstimate of 25 dollars for conventional oil. But never spoke actual costs vecause I wasnt sure about the figure. It ia nice to know I safelly highballed it.

>> No.3875074

People are scared of nuclear power. Too bad, because it's the only viable power source

>> No.3875082

>>3875063
actually, major inefficiencies are built into the system, as you noted above. refineries are deliberately shut down (one major Conoco unit in Bakersfield has been shut down now for about ten years). oil rigs are scarce and booked years in advance, the Deepwater Horizon loss put several majors completely out of the production business until a new rig comes on line ghod only knows when, etc etc

>> No.3875101

>>3875074 Nuclear
The problem with nuclear is that it doesnt scale well.

It would be difficult to have nuclear powered cars, certainly we could use nuclear energy to power electric vehicles, but then energy storage becomes an issue. Even with proposed battery swap stations, it is much easier to add extra gasoline to a conventional automobile. But nuclear energy could certainly be used to create more gasoline, at a cheaper price.

>> No.3875111

>>3875101
in Long Beach, Southern California, the refineries are mainly powered with natural gas turbines.

the problem with natural gas is that it's next to impossible to forecast when a gas well will go dry. they produce at nearly full volume until they run out, and when they do, it's like someone turned the spigot. oops, no more gas, sorry.

there's just bad thinking and next to no contingency planning going on at any level in the oil business

>> No.3875133

>>3874570
you mean converting corn into ethanol

>> No.3875144

>>3875133
No, there are hydrocarbon options better than ethanol.

>> No.3875150

>>3875082
>one major Conoco unit in Bakersfield has been shut down now for about ten years

It is only one unit, not the whole refinery. Odds are the unit was was producing something that is not in demand. You don't run a unit unless it is helping you make money.

Units have to be shut down every year or 2 for maintenance.

>in Long Beach, Southern California, the refineries are mainly powered with natural gas turbines.

Many plants will take use methane/ethane from distillation and coker gas to power the steam boilers.

>> No.3875157

If you are a bank proprietor propose parliamentary approved incentives for the transition if you do indeed have a viable alternative

>> No.3875158

>>3875144
>does not know about algae based biodiesel.

>> No.3875177

>>3875158
What does algae have to do with surplus corn?

>> No.3875179

>>3874121
Because... i dunno.

Its usfull and humants tend to fight over usfull things...

>> No.3875186

>>3875177
Alage is not food. You can grow it anywhere you can set up a pond and not have it freeze over.

Making food into fuel is retarded.

>> No.3875260
File: 40 KB, 288x436, 1311303278899.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3875260

Vested interests.
/thread

>any other answer in this 90 post thread

>> No.3875291

>>3875186

Yes I agree there is a great future in algae biofuels. But tjis particular discussion started with hfcs. The poster stated if we banned hfcs we could use the extra corn as ethanol. I then stated corn could be turned into other things that would be a more productive use.

Because this particular argument is soley based upon the redistribution of current corn growths bringing up algae is oitside the scope.

Now if you wished to suggest that reutilizing the hfcs corn land for algae ponds would be beneficial, I fully support your efforts, but suggest you speak to the corn ethanol poster instead of me.

>> No.3875406

>>3875291
If you ban HFCS you will need a replacement. Corn growers would switch over to sugar beets. You won't have any extra corn for ethanol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beets#Processing

>> No.3875413

>>3875406

That is a good point, I had not consdered the market place's demand for replacement sweetener. Though we could just end up removing the cuba embargo and subsidizing our dommestic production with cheap cane sugar.

>> No.3875426

>>3875413
Is there any reason still for the cuba embargo? Or is it people being troglodytes and treating countries like sentient hiveminds that need to be punished.

>> No.3875432

>>3875426
Seeing as they almost started WWIII I think so,

>> No.3875446

Would I let Jim Parsons fuck me? Yes, yes I would.

>> No.3875905

>>3875432

no cuba did not, castro did. punishing an entire nation of people for the crimes of 1 person that many of them also hate is utter savagery.

>> No.3875909

Moyniez.
/thread.