[PraiseDoom]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', '
')
I have a simple question for PolestaR too. Where are all the unemployed buggy whip manufacturers? And saddle makers? We must have a massive crisis on our hands because we took away their jobs right?

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', 'A')aron, you link to an article that says poor people are poor.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', ' ')You were saying?

[Aaron]

Here's the evidence you asked for... of course it's from a "wacky peak oil nut-job named Greenspan, or something like that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')urther gloom gathered over the US economy yesterday as retail sales lurched lower while former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan issued a fresh warning that the world's largest economy could be heading for recession. New figures showed retail sales in the US unexpectedly tumbled last month, hit by a double whammy of higher petrol prices and a crumbling housing market.

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', 'I') have a simple question for PolestaR too. Where are all the unemployed buggy whip manufacturers? And saddle makers? We must have a massive crisis on our hands because we took away their jobs right?

I have a novel idea, maybe removing inefficiency in an economy increases employment not decreases it.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '.')..
The _FACT_ is we have lived a life with so many unnecessary parts to it for so long that the population now relies upon those unnecessary things to survive. Overpopulation.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'S')imple deductive reasoning.

Let's see:

If oil's price has risen 300% over the last 2 years or so, & oil alternative technologies grew from 1% to 2% of total energy investing, in the same time period, what % price increase would oil need to achieve, for "alternatives" to reach 50% of the total energy budget?

14,400%

That's what... $576 per gallon of gas?

It's actually more complex than that of course, but you get the idea.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '.')..
The market is good at helping fools and their money part ways. Oil works the same way. Profit isn't based on what's best from any pragmatic point of view, be it efficiency, utility, or y'allz momaz. It's based off of gaining the most while giving the least.

[Sheb]

Aaron,

Yep, your point is so fundamental, it is painful. Kind of like poking a razor in someone's eye and then explaining to them how sharp it is. Next to oil, everything else competes for second-place.

And regarding that challenge, as I think about it, I immediately trace back to especially where all all this oil come from. Where did from? Why, dead bodies of course!

So here's an alternative for you--or at least another horse in the race for second place:

Over the next 20 years or so, we are going to have more dead bodies than one can shake a stick at. Literaly. And certainly more than most folks would know how to handle. So would would everyone do? Probably the same thing they always did...through all that perfectly good biomass away. But what if we could (and we can!) thermo-depolymerize these bodies in giant, well-insulated fuel-production vats? Hell, we could even use the fuel produced to take the heat (already run the numbers...mostly just an issue of insulation and vessel size). Well, I'll tell you what if. We'd have the equivalent of roughly 1B barrels of oils at our fingertip--actually, at the five-billion remaining fingertips--over the 20 years. That's 2 barrels per person (or up to 10 per person if you're a real doomer). Nothing grandiose, but maybe enough to get the remaining folks on their way to , if they conserve:)

For equivalent per-gallon prices of $10 to $20/gal (in current dollars), which I do not see as out of the question, this would have a gross market value of about $0.5T to $1T. Not too shabby. And a bargain compared to the $576/gal equivalent for the other "alternatives". Now that I think about it, maybe $20/gal would be too cheap.

And don't forget that it solves the looming logistics problem of body disposal, making it a truly "green" concept. I think it would be only fitting to call it..


..."Oilent Green". The greenest oil of them all.


In fact, this concept gives more value to large metropoli than any other I have seen on the forum.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'S')uch a simple argument and yet so poignant.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PraiseDoom', ' ')Considering you can make oil from methane, and methane can be made from garbage, seems to me we can make solar panels from trash. Thats even better!

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', 'I') have a simple question for PolestaR too. Where are all the unemployed buggy whip manufacturers? And saddle makers? We must have a massive crisis on our hands because we took away their jobs right?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'O')il Alternatives Aren't YET.
You seem to be assuming that all energy sources are at a fixed level of quality. But fossil fuels are quickly becoming poorer energy sources, and simultaneously certain alternatives, especially solar, are becoming better energy sources.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', 'I') understand the argument fairly well. The argument centres around the idea that there is no replacement for the liquid fuel that comes from oil. I'm suggesting there is an alternative. That alternative is CTL.

[Joe0Bloggs]

Aaron: is history on your side?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Joe0Bloggs', 'Y')our argument seems to imply that in the past, when we traded up to a higher quality fuel, the new fuel always stepped in and replaced use of the old fuel en masse even when the old fuel was at its lowest price--and undercut the price of the old fuel.

Otherwise, if the new fuel didn't make an impact until the old fuel had risen in price due to shortages, that would 'imply' that the new fuel was of lower quality than the old fuel, and hence would never be able to fuel civilization to a higher level than when the old fuel was in use.

Was this really the case in history? DID coal really replace wood while the price of wood was at its lowest? Ditto with oil over coal?

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Joe0Bloggs', 'A')aron: is history on your side?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Joe0Bloggs', 'Y')our argument seems to imply that in the past, when we traded up to a higher quality fuel, the new fuel always stepped in and replaced use of the old fuel en masse even when the old fuel was at its lowest price--and undercut the price of the old fuel.

Otherwise, if the new fuel didn't make an impact until the old fuel had risen in price due to shortages, that would 'imply' that the new fuel was of lower quality than the old fuel, and hence would never be able to fuel civilization to a higher level than when the old fuel was in use.

Was this really the case in history? DID coal really replace wood while the price of wood was at its lowest? Ditto with oil over coal?

[Tanada]

Actually Aaron England switched to coal because of a wood shortage for factories. So did the eastern seaboard of the USA, for homes once the Franklin Stove was introduced. Coal was more profitable than wood in England because coal was on the Island and wood had to be imported. Coal was cheaper in the US Eastern Seaboard region because it was locally produced and nobody had any other use for the stuff besides Coking and Cooking Well some Coke was used for gunpowder manufacturing but that was a sideline to its main use for iron smelting and blacksmithing. The first US Blast Furnaces were fueld with oaken billets, then they discovered that Pennsylvania Anthracite would burn in a blast furnace. Once the easy Anthracite was used up in the area's they discovered Coked Bituemus coal worked just as well and was abundant. That is why Pennsylvania became a stell capital of the USA for a hundred years.

Coal oil aka coke oven distilled Kerosene replaced wale oil for lighting/lamp oil because the over hunting of Whales lead to extream prices for lantern fuel. The first oil wells drilled in Poland and the USA were because of Kerosene, you could get a lot more K-1 from petroleum than you could from Coal but the term Coal Oil is still used by the eldest generation now alive and some of us who spend time with them. In terms of smell and preference the people switching away from whale oil were not happy, whale oil gave off a pleasent smell, but Kerosene was far cheaper because it was abundant, not a better fuel.

Don't take me wrong here, Coal is more energy dense than Wood, and Petroleum is more energy dense than Coal or Natural Gas, but Whale Oil is very similer to Kerosene in energy density and Kerosene from Coal or Petroelum is still Kerosene. Charcole was the forge/smelter fuel of choice before Coke was invented because it was more energy dense than Wood and also has much less ash content per unit volume.

OIL HISTORY$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')arly Refining
By 1860 there were 15 refineries in operation. Known as "tea kettle" stills, they consisted of a large iron drum and a long tube which acted as a condenser. Capacity of these stills ranged from 1 to 100 barrels a day. A coal fire heated the drum, and three fractions were obtained during the distillation process. The first component to boil off was the highly volatile naphtha. Next came the kerosene, or "lamp oil", and lastly came the heavy oils and tar which were simply left in the bottom of the drum. These early refineries produced about 75% kerosene, which could be sold for high profits. (Giddens, p.14)

Kerosene was so valuable because of a whale shortage that had began in 1845 due to heavy hunting. Sperm oil had been the main product of the whaling industry and was used in lamps. Candles were made with another whale product called "spermaceti". This shortage of natural sources meant that kerosene was in great demand. Almost all the families across the country started using kerosene to light their homes. However, the naphtha and tar fractions were seen as valueless and were simply dumped into Oil Creek. (I would like to point out that these first refineries were not operated by chemical engineers

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'A')ctually Aaron England switched to coal because of a wood shortage for factories. So did the eastern seaboard of the USA, for homes once the Franklin Stove was introduced. Coal was more profitable than wood in England because coal was on the Island and wood had to be imported. Coal was cheaper in the US Eastern Seaboard region because it was locally produced and nobody had any other use for the stuff besides Coking and Cooking Well some Coke was used for gunpowder manufacturing but that was a sideline to its main use for iron smelting and blacksmithing. The first US Blast Furnaces were fueld with oaken billets, then they discovered that Pennsylvania Anthracite would burn in a blast furnace. Once the easy Anthracite was used up in the area's they discovered Coked Bituemus coal worked just as well and was abundant. That is why Pennsylvania became a stell capital of the USA for a hundred years.

Coal oil aka coke oven distilled Kerosene replaced wale oil for lighting/lamp oil because the over hunting of Whales lead to extream prices for lantern fuel. The first oil wells drilled in Poland and the USA were because of Kerosene, you could get a lot more K-1 from petroleum than you could from Coal but the term Coal Oil is still used by the eldest generation now alive and some of us who spend time with them. In terms of smell and preference the people switching away from whale oil were not happy, whale oil gave off a pleasent smell, but Kerosene was far cheaper because it was abundant, not a better fuel.

Don't take me wrong here, Coal is more energy dense than Wood, and Petroleum is more energy dense than Coal or Natural Gas, but Whale Oil is very similer to Kerosene in energy density and Kerosene from Coal or Petroelum is still Kerosene. Charcole was the forge/smelter fuel of choice before Coke was invented because it was more energy dense than Wood and also has much less ash content per unit volume.

OIL HISTORY$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')arly Refining
By 1860 there were 15 refineries in operation. Known as "tea kettle" stills, they consisted of a large iron drum and a long tube which acted as a condenser. Capacity of these stills ranged from 1 to 100 barrels a day. A coal fire heated the drum, and three fractions were obtained during the distillation process. The first component to boil off was the highly volatile naphtha. Next came the kerosene, or "lamp oil", and lastly came the heavy oils and tar which were simply left in the bottom of the drum. These early refineries produced about 75% kerosene, which could be sold for high profits. (Giddens, p.14)

Kerosene was so valuable because of a whale shortage that had began in 1845 due to heavy hunting. Sperm oil had been the main product of the whaling industry and was used in lamps. Candles were made with another whale product called "spermaceti". This shortage of natural sources meant that kerosene was in great demand. Almost all the families across the country started using kerosene to light their homes. However, the naphtha and tar fractions were seen as valueless and were simply dumped into Oil Creek. (I would like to point out that these first refineries were not operated by chemical engineers

[azreal60]

I think one of the problems with looking at inflation and other numbers is that statistics is a funny science. Just change a few variable's in way's that can be easily explained away, and you get wildly differing results. This is how politicians can use hugely different numbers and still both not be lying. And unfortunately, on average politicians aren't very good at math anyway. So they base their whole world views on ideas that might not be workable.

If you wonder why I brought politics into this, politics is the process by which we allocate resources. Our allocation of resources and the measurement of this allocation can be very much altered to hide simple truths. I'm not implying a huge conspiracy mind you. I agree with the earlier post that stated that it's much more likely that the reason alternatives aren't being developed on such a huge scale is because the market doesn't see the need for it yet.

Keep in mind, we aren't looking at actual oil shortages yet in developed countrys. Most of it's a higher price than we are used too. I totally agree the developed countries aren't feeling it yet because they have the flex in their money supply to allocate more money to energy without a huge noticability factor. But when the little guys have already cut all they can, and the supply keeps going down, That's when the market's going to notice. And I think the point you keep ignoring is, no one in the united states, which is by far the worst case of oil usage, is building a CTL factory. No one's even seriously suggesting it. Infrastructure takes huge amounts of time to change. The argument is that the change will come too late to make enough of a difference.


Now, these points can be argued either way. But which makes more sense? Planning for the lower to worst range in hopes that your planning can make them livable, or hoping for the best case range because you feel you can't make plans that can survive below the midpoint of doomerism. I would argue that cornicopians are the true doomers, as they have a certain lack of confidence in their own planning. So of course the best results must be right, because I can't survive if the worst results happen!

Well..... That's kinda the point.....

[Joe0Bloggs]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')
Previous transitions (wood/coal/oil) reflected the higher quality energy source, replacing lower quality sources. In other words, coal was more profitable than wood...

We didn't switch because of shortages... we switched because of profits.

[Tanada]

In terms of energy gain for the user almost all fossil fuel use is currently declining. You have to invest more and more energy every year to get back the energy you need to operate everything in your economy including the energy production itself.

Renewables by the same token require a lot of energy feedstock before they become net energy producers if you make a full accounting.