RE: Oil

RE: Oil (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Padriag -> RE: Oil (5/27/2008 4:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I also wonder - if the existing gas network cannot take compressed air as required, could the air not still be delivered through the gas network and be compressed at point of delivery by way of excess unused electricity produced by the engine? Overnight for instance, when electricity is not used so much, the engine compresses the air for the following day's "fuel". This would necessitate two larger domestic air tanks than required purely for household needs, as capacity would have to be available to power the filling of tank B from the "fuel" remaining in tank A. This would require presumably, a very efficient means of compressing air however - and I must emphasise I am talking from the basis of no knowledge or skill about the engineering realities for all this! If you have an air compressor on site you don't need lines to deliver air, you just use the air all around you. Still won't work though. What you're now proposing is essentially a form of "perpetual motion machine". As for delivering compressed air, what you need are something like the network of steam pipes they used to use (and in a few places still do use) in New York, Chicago, etc. Speaking of which, steam is a pretty good source of power for a variety of things, and I suppose you could pump steam or compressed air through the same lines (pipes would be able to handle the pressure either way). Still have the problem of infrastructure which would only really be possible in urban areas. Compare this with solar panels which currently are able to produce up to 8KwH, enough for many homes to be energy independent or nearly so... solar hot water and geothermal heating/cooling which reduce power demands further and make the solar panels even more viable. These technologies already exist and are in production... you can buy them right now... all of it. The catch is the cost, which is high because currently there isn't much market demand. As that demand increases, so will production and prices will eventually drop further... they already have in fact compared to where they were just five years ago. Lots of doom saying going on and predictions of some sort of global energy holocaust... personally I think its being overly dramatic. Things are going to get tough for awhile, that I don't doubt. But viable solutions for many of these problems are already at hand. Its just a matter of things getting painful enough to motivate people to actually change... instead of talking about change... which is mostly all that's happened for the last couple of decades.

shallowdeep -> RE: Oil (5/27/2008 5:00:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers If we were really serious and we are not, we would have long ago tapped the gas nitrate in the Gulf of Mexico where there is enough if harvested even reasonbly...to power the US in its entirety for 1000 years. and quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Are you suggesting that there is roughly 7.5 trillion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico? ... Uh...I think your estimate is a little off. I'm guessing MrRodgers was a bit confused and was referring to methane hydrates. They're interesting and have generated some interest as a possible future energy source. According to this 2007 report from the Department of Energy, estimates of US hydrate resources are around 200,000 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of methane and current methane use is 22 TCF per year. The EIA indicates 19% of US energy comes from natural gas, so there is enough to meet US energy needs at present rates for a bit more than 1700 years - if the estimates are accurate and if it were all recoverable. Those last two caveats are quite important. The report cautions: quote: However, estimates of the methane hydrate resource are poorly understood, and estimates of the portion of the gas that could ultimately be economically recovered are even less well understood. The USGS throws a bit of light on what that uncertainty is, with resource estimates that vary by three orders of magnitude. Recovery is the other issue. At present it simply isn't commercially feasible - and that's likely to stay the case. Even if attempted, recovery rates would probably be poor, and 1700 years become less than two decades at 1%. There is indisputably significant energy stored in methane hydrates (although the exact amount is quite disputable), but the same can be said for sunlight or nuclear fuel, and the costs for tapping those are substantially lower. Energy issues aside, should permafrost melt or the seas warm the effect massive methane releases might have on the climate is rather interesting.

shallowdeep -> RE: Oil (5/27/2008 5:02:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Still no one is asking where all the by-products of oil are going to come from in the future. There are alternatives to burning oil as an energy source now but not many alternatives to some of the crucial chemicals we require for our everyday lives. I used to worry about this more, but consider that petroleum forms when organic material is exposed to heat and pressure. Those conditions can be simulated. If you can supply energy (and some catalysts) there is nothing stopping you from synthesizing desired hydrocarbons. You could even start with nothing but water and carbon dioxide, although biomass or coal would be more practical. If we truly meet the challenge of developing cheap and abundant alternative energy, then we essentially address this concern too. Already plants make decent sources for some plastics. The first plastics were derived from cellulose, and various bioplastics are presently commercially available. Genetically engineered crops could make plastic production even more effective. I think it's also worth noting that we often use plastic because they're cheap and not because plastic is strictly necessary, or even the best option. Metals, ceramics, glass, cellulose, rubber, and carbon fiber can all serve as substitutes for plastics. While certainly worth some thought, I don't think it's accurate to say that there aren't viable alternatives to the materials and products we use that currently derive from petroleum. Costs may increase, and there may be some tradeoffs, but I see the situation as fundamentally similar to finding substitutes for the energy we derive from petroleum, not radically different.

Irishknight -> RE: Oil (5/27/2008 5:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster No, I'm talking about those fucking Klieg lights on the ground illuminating buildings in some fucked-up attempt to mirror Albert Speer's "Cathedral of Light". thanx for the clarification. I would have to agree with you 100% now.

MmeGigs -> RE: Oil (5/27/2008 9:01:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Still no one is asking where all the by-products of oil are going to come from in the future. That's because the future isn't now, and most of the world can't afford to think much about tomorrow. There are always problems that are immediate and pressing and never enough resources to take care of them all, so the resources available for preparing for the future are very limited. These issues are always multifaceted and all bits won't become a crisis at once, and there will always be disagreement about what's the most pressing issue and what should be done about it, and a lot of folks will have very convincing arguments for all kinds of possible futures. We'll deal with this by reacting whenever bits of an issue become a crisis. We won't find a solution, but we'll find someone to blame and settle on an easy answer that postpones any immediate need for decision or action. Maybe that's the way it has to be. Any way you cut it, there's going to be some pain. If not, there would be no issue. Poor folks will feel the pain before rich folks because every crisis is on some level an economic/resources crisis and poor folks have no cushion, but poor folks' pain will be acute, whereas when the pain eventually trickles up, it will be chronic. Applying resources to Problem A up front may get us a better result on Problem A, but we'll be taking resources from Problem B which may end us up even deeper in the shit than Problem A would have. Since we can't possibly round up the resources to tackle Problems A through Z proactively, perhaps we're better off reacting to crises as they present themselves and accepting that there will be fallout. This is the thing that the supply-siders ignore. Economic difficulty trickles up much more reliably than economic success trickles down, and the effects are longer lasting.

Irishknight -> RE: Oil (5/28/2008 6:43:55 AM)
I read an article about plastics made from, of all things, corn. I'm not sure of the viability of this idea but apparently, they areworking on replacing oil for those things too.

MmeGigs -> RE: Oil (5/29/2008 5:49:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight I read an article about plastics made from, of all things, corn. I'm not sure of the viability of this idea but apparently, they areworking on replacing oil for those things too. In the 1910's and 1920's, Henry Ford started making plastics out of plant products. In the 30's he used soy meal plastics to make quite a few parts for his cars - glove-box doors, gear-shift knobs, horn buttons, accelerator pedals... He made a prototype car with a body made out of soy meal plastic. There are pictures and news reels of him smacking it with an ax to show how strong the plastic was. That all went away for quite a while for some reason, but there's work going on all over the place on plant-based plastics now, using all kinds of stuff. Some guys at Cornell were working on a plastic made from orange peels, and I know there's a big hemp plastics movement out there.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.015625