Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

synthetic Octane

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 11:00:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 11:13:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is synthesizing octane cheaper than pumping up oil?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 11:23:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 11:13:28 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Is synthesizing octane cheaper than pumping up oil?

Nowhere close. While oil prices are higher than we might like, oil remains really, really cheap. It's cheaper than bottled water for example. Synthetic chemicals are, by comparison very expensive. It has been proposed that we genetically engineer cyanobacteria to produce octane, which could be cheaper in the long run and is carbon neutral, but not while oil is still this cheap. OPEC maintains production levels to keep the price as high as possible without encouraging investments in alternatives.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 12:25:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?:

As has been explained, it's not cost-effective to produce. It would be more expensive for the consumer. Brazil uses other biodegradable fuels, and some people have propositioned that we do the same with corn ethanol. The problem is that the U.S. has the 3rd largest population, and has more vehicles than there are people! There's no amount of planting corn and having refineries all over the United States to sustain everyone.

I applaude them for trying to get away from oil, and there are some really innovative steps towards doing that, but it's very, very expensive. It's kind of like cell phones. Cell phones used to be really expensive. Only a select few could afford them. Eventually more people purchased them. The ubiquity of things like flat screen t.v.'s or cell phones drives down the cost. Now almost everyone owns one.

That's what has to happen in order to even entertain it
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 12:40:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.

http://seekingalpha.com...

Oil companies have a 6.2% profit margin, ranking 114th out of 215 industries.

What about the evil lumber companies that are making 17% profit margins? What about the evil periodical companies making 51%.

Really, 6% isn't much. If the government took an additional 50% of those company's profits, it would only lower gas prices by $0.10 nationwide.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 12:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 12:40:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.

http://seekingalpha.com...

Oil companies have a 6.2% profit margin, ranking 114th out of 215 industries.

What about the evil lumber companies that are making 17% profit margins? What about the evil periodical companies making 51%.

Really, 6% isn't much. If the government took an additional 50% of those company's profits, it would only lower gas prices by $0.10 nationwide.

On the other hand if the government dropped the gas tax they would lower gas by apx. $ .50 a gallon
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 12:51:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just a question. How much do you pay for fuel in the US?

The average price of a litre of fuel over here in oil-producing Britain is £1.45.

With 1 litre = 0.26 US gallon and £1.00 = $1.58 that equates to approximately $9.17 a gallon.

The vast majority of that money goes straight into the government coffers in the form of Fuel Duty, which is a kind of sales tax.

So, do you pay more than $9.17 a gallon in America?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:07:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 12:51:58 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Just a question. How much do you pay for fuel in the US?

The average price of a litre of fuel over here in oil-producing Britain is £1.45.

With 1 litre = 0.26 US gallon and £1.00 = $1.58 that equates to approximately $9.17 a gallon.

The vast majority of that money goes straight into the government coffers in the form of Fuel Duty, which is a kind of sales tax.

So, do you pay more than $9.17 a gallon in America?

I don't believe I have ever seen gas that expensive in the US. People in the states pretty much have an expectation that it'll be under $4. If it gets higher than that, Americans get ornery and start rallying for revolution.
Debate.org Moderator
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:17:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 12:51:58 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Just a question. How much do you pay for fuel in the US?

The average price of a litre of fuel over here in oil-producing Britain is £1.45.

With 1 litre = 0.26 US gallon and £1.00 = $1.58 that equates to approximately $9.17 a gallon.

The vast majority of that money goes straight into the government coffers in the form of Fuel Duty, which is a kind of sales tax.

So, do you pay more than $9.17 a gallon in America?

Let's see, you pay $3.46 fuel duty tax per U.S. gallon, and then 20% value added tax on top of that tax as well as the base price, right? Yeah, that is ridiculous. I would ride a bike even if I had to cross the UK.

I like James May's rant while awarding 'Top Gear's 2007 Lifetime Achievement Award for the person who's done the most to ruin the lives of Britain's 33 million motorists':

The award goes to: Ken Livingston, for deciding that if you earn a living and pay tax, and spend some of what's left on a car, and then pay value added tax on that, and then buy some road fund license tax to put the car on the road, and then pay fuel duty tax on the fuel, and value added tax on that fuel duty tax, you should then pay 25 pounds TAX! to drive into the center of the capitol.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 12:51:58 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Just a question. How much do you pay for fuel in the US?

The average price of a litre of fuel over here in oil-producing Britain is £1.45.

With 1 litre = 0.26 US gallon and £1.00 = $1.58 that equates to approximately $9.17 a gallon.

The vast majority of that money goes straight into the government coffers in the form of Fuel Duty, which is a kind of sales tax.

So, do you pay more than $9.17 a gallon in America?

And that is why I have super-powers.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:29:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We are at about three and a half bucks here in Wisconsin.

It's best to think of oil as a giant bank account. For billions of years, the account slowly grew. Then, one day, we suddenly started tapping it, draining it rapidly over a short period of time. It is impossible to simply recharge this "bank account" quickly.

So can't we start putting money back in? No way. Saying synthetic octane is not economically feasible is a gross understatement. I mean you can never truly account for what the future may hold for technology, but being able to mass produce it in the laboratory at the scale we would need has about as much chance of happening as Marty McFly's hoverboard coming to a Wal-Mart near you. There are certain ways that technology tends to progress, and certain ways it does not. We do tend to get smarter and craftier (i.e., information technology, genetics) but we don't tend to get more powerful - at least not in the sense that it occurs in a mass-producable way with no side-effects. We can build bigger atomic bombs as tech progresses, for instance, but we can't give each citizen clean and limitless atomic energy for every day usage. There seems to be a fundamental balance when it comes to energy - when you use, you lose. You can't outsmart your way out of it. Even the universe itself will die an eventual heat-death when the energy it has expires. In a miniscule way (miniscule forever?) our increased energy usage is actually accelerating the death of the entire universe. I don't see it as a big issue for our current eon but it gives you a perspective of the fundamentals at play.

We don't tend to get this point, because again there was a massive "bank account" here already and our perception is that we've intuitively outsmarted nature by building these motorized machines for every day use. But they need fuel to run and that fuel cannot be created easily. We didn't create the fuel! You must break yourself of this perception and realize that technology does not offer us a holy grail for limitless energy. We will survive by learning how to use LESS energy to do what we are doing, not find ways to use MORE through some technological magic bullet that lets us feel free to waste it whenever we want. That's not to say we won't find better ways, like perhaps tapping into the electromagnetic energy all around us, but there is always going to be a PRIME emphasis on reduction. Reduction is the holy grail we are looking for; it's been there all along. Reusing will be secondary and recycling tertiary.
Rob
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 12:40:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.

http://seekingalpha.com...

Oil companies have a 6.2% profit margin, ranking 114th out of 215 industries.

What about the evil lumber companies that are making 17% profit margins? What about the evil periodical companies making 51%.

Really, 6% isn't much. If the government took an additional 50% of those company's profits, it would only lower gas prices by $0.10 nationwide.

That's because the oil companies "buy" crude oil from their subsidiaries to keep the rentier income off balance sheet.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:41:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
CONCLUSION

So my point was that this is asking the wrong question. You are asking it within the paradigm that we should create more energy, instead of realizing that the answer is using less energy. And one of the prime ways we are going to use less energy is by making use of the existing technology that has already been here for millions of years - the biological systems of the Earth. And no, that doesn't mean using bacteria to create oil to put in a car engine, that means using a horse to go to work every day. If you don't like that idea, then you will be someone who does not travel often. Big, energy-killing machines will be used sparingly or for emergencies only. Nobody is going to want to build them anyway once they adopt this post-modern lifestyle. And no, this isn't minimalism. We'll still have computers and technology that isn't energy-intensive. In fact, a horse is much more "technologically" (note the quotes, definition-mongers) advanced than any car you can drive. What's the MPG on that baby? Man could continue creating more technologically advanced vehicles until the end of time and his very last model would be Mr. Ed.
Rob
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:44:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 1:40:24 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/27/2012 12:40:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.

http://seekingalpha.com...

Oil companies have a 6.2% profit margin, ranking 114th out of 215 industries.

What about the evil lumber companies that are making 17% profit margins? What about the evil periodical companies making 51%.

Really, 6% isn't much. If the government took an additional 50% of those company's profits, it would only lower gas prices by $0.10 nationwide.

That's because the oil companies "buy" crude oil from their subsidiaries to keep the rentier income off balance sheet.

Care to outline this process for us and where the money all is?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 2:20:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 1:44:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 1:40:24 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/27/2012 12:40:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.

http://seekingalpha.com...

Oil companies have a 6.2% profit margin, ranking 114th out of 215 industries.

What about the evil lumber companies that are making 17% profit margins? What about the evil periodical companies making 51%.

Really, 6% isn't much. If the government took an additional 50% of those company's profits, it would only lower gas prices by $0.10 nationwide.

That's because the oil companies "buy" crude oil from their subsidiaries to keep the rentier income off balance sheet.

Care to outline this process for us and where the money all is?

It's the major component of cost of goods sold.
http://www.marketwatch.com...

If you grab the PDF its in the extended income statement as "Crude oil and product purchases." They don't list their counter-parties. So I can't tell you "where the money all is." I would guess it's in subsidiary accounts like Aera and XTO, and in gulf state sovereign wealth funds.

Nonetheless, if you just look at their income statement, XOM didn't actually pump any oil, they bought it all.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 2:34:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 2:20:39 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/27/2012 1:44:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 1:40:24 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/27/2012 12:40:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.

http://seekingalpha.com...

Oil companies have a 6.2% profit margin, ranking 114th out of 215 industries.

What about the evil lumber companies that are making 17% profit margins? What about the evil periodical companies making 51%.

Really, 6% isn't much. If the government took an additional 50% of those company's profits, it would only lower gas prices by $0.10 nationwide.

That's because the oil companies "buy" crude oil from their subsidiaries to keep the rentier income off balance sheet.

Care to outline this process for us and where the money all is?

It's the major component of cost of goods sold.
http://www.marketwatch.com...

If you grab the PDF its in the extended income statement as "Crude oil and product purchases." They don't list their counter-parties. So I can't tell you "where the money all is." I would guess it's in subsidiary accounts like Aera and XTO, and in gulf state sovereign wealth funds.

Nonetheless, if you just look at their income statement, XOM didn't actually pump any oil, they bought it all.

You don't know who they bought it from, or how much it cost those companies to get it, or if the companies are at all related, but you know that they are just hiding it?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 3:08:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 2:34:35 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 2:20:39 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/27/2012 1:44:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 1:40:24 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/27/2012 12:40:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/27/2012 10:58:06 AM, DanT wrote:
Why not synthesize octane to reduce the cost of oil?

Because then the corporations would not make their massive profits on overpriced oil. That would be a bad deal for Bush.

http://seekingalpha.com...

Oil companies have a 6.2% profit margin, ranking 114th out of 215 industries.

What about the evil lumber companies that are making 17% profit margins? What about the evil periodical companies making 51%.

Really, 6% isn't much. If the government took an additional 50% of those company's profits, it would only lower gas prices by $0.10 nationwide.

That's because the oil companies "buy" crude oil from their subsidiaries to keep the rentier income off balance sheet.

Care to outline this process for us and where the money all is?

It's the major component of cost of goods sold.
http://www.marketwatch.com...

If you grab the PDF its in the extended income statement as "Crude oil and product purchases." They don't list their counter-parties. So I can't tell you "where the money all is." I would guess it's in subsidiary accounts like Aera and XTO, and in gulf state sovereign wealth funds.

Nonetheless, if you just look at their income statement, XOM didn't actually pump any oil, they bought it all.

You don't know who they bought it from, or how much it cost those companies to get it, or if the companies are at all related, but you know that they are just hiding it?

I never said they were hiding it. I said that dividing profit by revenue of the parent company is not the right way to measure profit margin. I'm not as cynical as you give me credit for.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 3:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 12:51:58 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Just a question. How much do you pay for fuel in the US?

The average price of a litre of fuel over here in oil-producing Britain is £1.45.

With 1 litre = 0.26 US gallon and £1.00 = $1.58 that equates to approximately $9.17 a gallon.

The vast majority of that money goes straight into the government coffers in the form of Fuel Duty, which is a kind of sales tax.

So, do you pay more than $9.17 a gallon in America?

Regular is $3.591 per gallon, Diesel is $4.051 per gallon

$1 = £0.6311
1 US gallon = 3.78541178 litres

So Regular is £0.598687866 per litre, and Diesel is £0.675378598 per litre

For regular 12% of the cost is taxes, 6% is distribution and marketing, 6% is refining, and 76% is crude oil.
For diesel 12% of the cost is taxes, 10% is distribution and marketing, 11% is refining, and 67% is crude oil.

http://www.eia.gov...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 4:33:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why was I under the impression it was cheaper/easier to refine diesel than gasoline?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 5:12:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 1:41:10 PM, Lasagna wrote:
CONCLUSION

So my point was that this is asking the wrong question. You are asking it within the paradigm that we should create more energy, instead of realizing that the answer is using less energy. And one of the prime ways we are going to use less energy is by making use of the existing technology that has already been here for millions of years - the biological systems of the Earth. And no, that doesn't mean using bacteria to create oil to put in a car engine, that means using a horse to go to work every day. If you don't like that idea, then you will be someone who does not travel often. Big, energy-killing machines will be used sparingly or for emergencies only. Nobody is going to want to build them anyway once they adopt this post-modern lifestyle. And no, this isn't minimalism. We'll still have computers and technology that isn't energy-intensive. In fact, a horse is much more "technologically" (note the quotes, definition-mongers) advanced than any car you can drive. What's the MPG on that baby? Man could continue creating more technologically advanced vehicles until the end of time and his very last model would be Mr. Ed.

Horses eat food. Humans need food a lot more direly. Horses eat a lot more food. Horses are slow. Horses cannot transfer large amounts of goods.

Oil is cheap, Oil is easy to reaccess thanks to modern developments in the last 10 years, renewable energy is becoming better and better and easier to get. We just need the government to invest more money in the industry for it to be popular. Yes, that's a scary thought for some people, but the problem is that oil will create a general glut on the scale never seen before. Reinvestment in oil pumps was at an all time low in 2002, and kept going down afterwards. Andy Hall predicted this, and he is rich. This was in the boom as well. Soon, we are going to reach a peak, unless the oil industry smartens up or we start investing tens of billions - if not more per country - into the renewable energy industries to make them commercially competitive with immense corporations.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 6:17:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 4:33:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Why was I under the impression it was cheaper/easier to refine diesel than gasoline?

Refining cost 22¢ per gallon for regular
Refining cost 45¢ per gallon for diesel

Marketing & Distribution cost 22¢ per gallon for regular
Marketing & Distribution cost 41¢ per gallon for diesel

Taxes cost 43¢ per gallon for regular
Taxes cost 49¢ per gallon for diesel

The cost of crude oil is $2.73 per gallon for regular
The cost of crude oil is $2.71 per gallon for diesel
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 6:26:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 5:12:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/27/2012 1:41:10 PM, Lasagna wrote:
CONCLUSION

So my point was that this is asking the wrong question. You are asking it within the paradigm that we should create more energy, instead of realizing that the answer is using less energy. And one of the prime ways we are going to use less energy is by making use of the existing technology that has already been here for millions of years - the biological systems of the Earth. And no, that doesn't mean using bacteria to create oil to put in a car engine, that means using a horse to go to work every day. If you don't like that idea, then you will be someone who does not travel often. Big, energy-killing machines will be used sparingly or for emergencies only. Nobody is going to want to build them anyway once they adopt this post-modern lifestyle. And no, this isn't minimalism. We'll still have computers and technology that isn't energy-intensive. In fact, a horse is much more "technologically" (note the quotes, definition-mongers) advanced than any car you can drive. What's the MPG on that baby? Man could continue creating more technologically advanced vehicles until the end of time and his very last model would be Mr. Ed.

Horses eat food. Humans need food a lot more direly. Horses eat a lot more food.

Producing oats was a lot simpler than producing gasoline the last time I checked. One process uses light, the other takes millions of years under highly intense pressures deep within the Earth's crust. Or else some highly-sophisticated laboratory that can only produce minute amounts of it at a time. And no, there are no promising foreseeable advancements to that increasing. If you can find someone that says there is, then you just come whispering to me ;)

Horses are slow.

Horses are pretty fast actually. The fastest of them break 50 MPH. We can breed these faster animals exclusively for travel, and you can figure a cruising speed of about 30 MPH on average although I'm just throwing that out there. That is plenty fast enough to get you to work. If it isn't, then you should be living closer to your place of employment. That might seem less feasible nowadays because of urban sprawl design, but in the future energy needs will be paramount and communities will be designed much more efficiently so that you're not traveling dozens of miles each way to work everyday. That is so inefficient it is just sick. Think about it. We use oil that took millions of years to form, just to drive ten miles across town to make a paycheck (in a job we probably don't even like no less). This society is so effing screwed up it really is pathetic. Better times are ahead, and I'm happy to say they will be forced on us.

Horses cannot transfer large amounts of goods.

Then use more than one horse. There are also many types of trains that could be used which don't depend on oil.

Oil is cheap,

Your perspective is flawed. Please account for:
- millions of years of time to make/inability to produce ourselves
- problems with foreign dependence
- resource degradation while extracting (not to mention things like spills afterwards)
- pollution from combustion

Oil is easy to reaccess thanks to modern developments in the last 10 years, renewable energy is becoming better and better and easier to get. We just need the government to invest more money in the industry for it to be popular. Yes, that's a scary thought for some people, but the problem is that oil will create a general glut on the scale never seen before. Reinvestment in oil pumps was at an all time low in 2002, and kept going down afterwards. Andy Hall predicted this, and he is rich. This was in the boom as well. Soon, we are going to reach a peak, unless the oil industry smartens up or we start investing tens of billions - if not more per country - into the renewable energy industries to make them commercially competitive with immense corporations.

Yes I am not super-excited about renewables, at least not within the paradigm of not limiting consumption. They are not a magic bullet.
Rob
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 7:12:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.