All of which takes time. Those technologies will occur evolutionary, not revolutionary. The politicians that worship at the alter of "climate change" and believe that the mere passing of a bill or manipulation of bureaucratic rules will create a miracle need to be removed from office ASAP.
Musings on petroleum.
- Thread starter Chobham
- Start date
Ethanol and other biofuels cannot replace petroleum because their production is itself too energy-intensive -- depending not only on sunlight but on fuel-burning tractors and harvesters. For various reasons, neither hydrogen nor electric batteries will allow us to continue running our happy-motoring society in the way to which we have become accustomed.
astuffedshirt_perv
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2002
- Posts
- 1,417
You are aware, are you not, that the US pumps enough oil and has enough refineries for our needs, right? Because that is basic to understanding our position. But oil companies are in it to make money, and when other countries run out of gas, they are willing to pay. Domestic oil companies are happy to sell gas to other countries at inflated prices. That drives up prices here. Now, I suppose we could nationalize the oil industry, take all we need and tell the rest of the world to figure it out, but we won't. We'll rely on the free market
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,432
We have over a Century of supply of oil at present and multiple centuries of NG.
AlexBailey
Kinky Tomgirl
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 10,756
You don't keep up with technology, do you? The only way to do things is by doing them the way they've always been done, right?
Ever hear of graphine or corn plastics? Graphine has superior potential over most plastics for medical and food handling needs. Most of the other shit you mention have other ways of being produced as well.
Why don't you want America to be the leader in alternative fuel and tech? Can't disturb the petrol gravytrain? If this were a hundred years ago you'd be driving a horse cart and yelling at the noisy motorists.
Conservative sticks in the mud like you are going to miss the boat while others fly past in their electric flying cars.
Philthy_Phil
I win !
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
- Posts
- 11,678
Sure there is. Vegetable oil
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 61,665
So you're saying that it can be used as fuel even as you said it can't be used as fuel earlier.
Of course it's not as efficient as oil.....I understand that....but there are alternatives.
AlexBailey
Kinky Tomgirl
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 10,756
You're wrong about the grid not being able to handle transportation needs. Cars will be changing, becoming lighter, smarter, and faster. Just watch the next ten years, new innovations and technologies are already becoming cheaper, more convenient and safer than petroleum.
Look up Altria Motors - electric cars that can self charge 40 miles per day without plugging in and have a battery range of 1k miles.
Look up gravitypower.net - clean gigawatts of energy storage available when we get the guts to invest instead of kneeling down to big oil.
Have some courage. The only thing holding us back is the petroleum establishment, the fear they spread, and the politicians they buy.
Careful, you're getting into CT territory here.
Champakian
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Posts
- 13,119
The only people who would ask that question frame the context as technology being held constant.
I imagine it will evolve quite drastically in the next century.
Champakian
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Posts
- 13,119
The point is that it is a continual process.
In other words, there will always be carbon past available present.
We are also evolving technologically and that is going to have a huge impact.
It is the panic and emergency thinking of the now that is our clear and present danger as a species.
Champakian
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Posts
- 13,119
We've been through that cycle.
Manufacturers make car lighter and then government (and special interest [like Nader])
step in and mandates they be safer to protect its voters (and by safer, we mean heavier...).
No I'm not. As late as last summer Gov. Newsome asked EV owners to refrain from charging during certain hours. The grid can barely service customers at current capacity. Maybe at some point in the FUTURE but we aren't there yet.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
NICOSIA, March 21 (Reuters) - An appraisal drilling for hydrocarbons off Cyprus has reaffirmed a reservoir of high quality gas in an area licensed to ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum, the island's energy ministry said on Monday.
The stuff is everywhere!
The stuff is everywhere!
That it is. The Japanese have a pilot program mining Methane Hydrate from the sea bed. Methane Hydrate is the worlds largest source of hydrocarbon energy. Larger than ALL of the known reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas combined.
AlexBailey
Kinky Tomgirl
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 10,756
Lol! Are you saying that with modern technology the only way to make cars safer is the same as what was done in the sixties and seventies? "We've already been through that cycle." You really are a chump.
And yeah, if you're going to load today's grid with today's EVs it will overload the grid, are you saying it has to all transition in March of 2022? You're the one who is dictating impossible time constraints - even the green New deal allows more time than you are.
KE = 1/2 m*v(squared) it's physics. Little cars lose every time.
Really? It seems to me that it's a group of politicians trying to impose unrealistic time constraints. If they can do it, so can I.
You have twice brought up "gravity storage." OK, it's an idea. Let's see the pilot demonstrator. It's not a solution until it's demonstrated practical and economical viability. How many of those units would be needed to provide power in a worst case scenario? How much land would be tied up and how much water? The model I saw would provide a GW of power. Fine, California generates approx. 300,000 GW. Granted not all of that would need to be covered in a worst case, but what percentage? (BudSpencer might have an approx. answer to that question.) The Devil's always in the details.
AlexBailey
Kinky Tomgirl
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 10,756
Oh, are you the party of "no"? Lol.
When automobiles first came out, was there a gas station on every corner? Large (multi-GW) scale hydro storage can be built in 4-5 years. How long does a nuke plant take?
Gravity energy storage works. You want a proof of concept? The Dinorwig hydro generation facility is in operation in Britain and provides for the peak demand made by tea time - no joke. , Dinorwig can go from producing 0 megawatts to 1,800 megawatts within 16 seconds, a supply that it can maintain for six hours nonstop.
(That's more than 1.21 gigawatts! you gotta get back to the Future baby!)
This is a fully functional and practical way of stabilizing the grid for peak demand. The larger piston versions would be more efficient and use less real estate than surface ponds. The systems could be scaled to be 50 - 100m across and 1000m deep. Far less area than a coal fired plant.
And if you think that electric powered heavy equipment is in the distant future look at modern mining equipment - much of which is already electric for the sake of the working "environment" within underground mines. Running diesel requires oxygen and ventilation, electric does not.
So when you hear corporate shill politicians chanting "drill baby, drill!" take a look to figure out who is drilling that into their heads. How much petrol money buys congress?
Last edited:
AlexBailey
Kinky Tomgirl
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 10,756
Also, regarding safety as a relation to size, there are factors that are far more influential than simply comparing mass. Having a passenger cockpit designed with crumple zones, air bags, and modern materials can be much safer than a heavy sardine can on wheels.
Your lack of imagination and denial of science is showing.
Your lack of imagination and denial of science is showing.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,474
Exactly correct! We need to transition into green alternatives as the technology warrants that transition. It has to be economically and technically feasible. Neutralizing our carbon footprint is decades away. Vegetable derivatives are carbon based in case anyone wonders.
I love how these make-believe technocrats accuse everyone that believe that an efficient and effective transition into green energy are anti change and don't believe in technological advancement. It's another version of virtue signaling lacking common sense.
I ask the question how does buying fossil fuels from the Saudis, Venezuela, Russia or Iran change the threat of climate change or global warming. Our LNG is the cleanest on the planet and only makes sense to produce it in our country, it keeps carbon emissions down and keeps our economy vibrant.
The other issue is as we buy crap from China their pollution increases as their economy increase and we use their crap to our detriment and economic destruction.
They won't answer that because they have no answer. They'll merely deflect and change the subject.
Of course it will. But, within limits. If ExxonMobil's corporate life depended on developing a faster-than-light drive, it would go bankrupt. Some things are physically impossible, and no economic incentives can make them possible.
How? What danger does it present?
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,474
If we immediately shut down all consumption of fossil fuels you don't see a clear and present danger. All you are is an argumentative troller who enjoys rereading your own post, as if quantity is your primary objective. No matter what anyone post you find a way to disagree, even on the most insignificant of detail. You understand the arguments presented but you fail to engage in the spirit of an argument. It's like you're trying to prove to everyone that you're some sort of superior intellect when in actuality you're a google addict. Most of what you post lacks independent thought. I'm labelling you as the official LIT fake contrarian.
Similar threads
