Oil - RevLeft

11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
Blogs
Groups
Albums
Support Us
Your CP
User Name User Name
RevLeft > General > Sciences and Environment
Oil
Log in
Password
Register
FAQ
Community
Calendar
Remember Me?
Today's Posts
Search
Sciences and Environment
Speculate, formulate, deliberate, and repudiate with fellow leftists on the

environment, technology, and science, including sociology and psychology.
Forum Led by: Quail
RevLeft Shortage Alert

RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $27.50 below the monthly needed
amount of $140. Help Revleft keep running - please subscribe for a monthly donation now!
View First Unread
18th October 2014, 05:42

I love to poop on others
Committed User
Like
Tweet
Thread Tools
Tweet this Post! #1
Join Date: Apr 2012

Location: Slumerica
Organisation: Militant Wing of Salvation Army, PeTA
Posts: 1,627
Tendency: Left Communists
Blog Entries: 4
Latest Blog Entry: Sick Sad World
Rep Power: 43
Reputation: 3946
Oil
I don't think it needs to be mentioned how big if a deal this actually is. I'm sure we have all
ranted about this subject in regards to other relating issues but have we really sat down and
discussed this? At least since I've been posting here I would be inclined to say no. What do I
wan to discuss? Oil. Up until now intellectually I always figured the world's addiction to the
crude stuff was silly and illogical; why put effort and invest into something which is finite and
we now know leads to all this pollution? Profits? Yes but I don't think this is entirely the case
entirely like I use to think. I've been virtually unaware of just how many products come from
oil/petroleum. Microchips in my iPhone, clown paint on my face, lots of stuff. I also didn't
realize that it use to be, an investor could pull a barrel up and such for 1$ and for this 1$
investment the would be entrepreneur could gain from that 12k+ of labor man-power hours. It
does seem to be some liquid if you think about because if you follow this line of thinking, for
the first time in history, we achieved free energy.
Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this habit?
Say "smash capitalism" and I'll smash your face cuz that's obvious and not helpful. According
to Herbert's peak, we need to figure out something soon. What do you guys think of the
Devil's piss?
__________________
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play,
here in my garden of magic.
"As for politics I'm an Anarchist. I hate governments and rules and fetters. Can't stand caged animals. People must be
http://www.revleft.com/vb/oil-t190883/index.html
1/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
free."-Charlie Chaplin.
"I love to gargle poop in my mouth and kiss girls."-Rosa Luxemberg, Speech to the Nuremberg Congress of the German
Social Democratic Party, 1908
18th October 2014, 05:57
rednoise
Pareconish Marxist
Tweet this Post! #2

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 709
Tendency: Marxist-Humanist Initiative
Rep Power: 12
Reputation: 1062
Sash camptialism.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rednoise For This Useful Post:
&, Illegalitarian, Mistress Sinistra, Skinz
18th October 2014, 06:19
Illegalitarian
SENIOR MOST REVOLUTIONARY
Tweet this Post! #3

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 463
Tendency: Revolutionary Marxists
Rep Power: 5
Reputation: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednoise

Sash camptialism.
I mean I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but this is pretty true.
Oil already has a monopoly over the earth wrt energy and is already lining the pockets of
energy barons, what's the financial incentive to go off experimenting with this and that?
Take away the incentive: smash capitalism
18th October 2014, 06:58

Committed User
Tweet this Post! #4

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Slumerica
Posts: 1,627
Blog Entries: 4
Rep Power: 43
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
2/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
Originally Posted by Illegalitarian

I mean I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but this is pretty true.
Oil already has a monopoly over the earth wrt energy and is already lining the
pockets of energy barons, what's the financial incentive to go off experimenting with
this and that?
Take away the incentive: smash capitalism
Yeah I know but I want more something substantive. Cuz I mean, I can campaign and rail
against fracking and oil and such and advocate for it's abandonment but then that would lead
to the inevitable, and then what? Considering again, just how many commodities and so on
are connected oil, petroleum and so on.
here is a link to a wiki article about the theory I mentioned in the OP, it's actually called
Hubbert's peak theory
__________________
18th October 2014, 08:36
Loony Le Fist
Libsoc Wackadoo
Tweet this Post! #5

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 701
Latest Blog Entry: How do we overcome the intellectual distortions of neoliberalism?
Rep Power: 12
Reputation: 1030
Quote:
Originally Posted by
...
Up until now intellectually I always figured the world's addiction to the crude stuff was
silly and illogical; why put effort and invest into something which is finite and we now
know leads to all this pollution? Profits? Yes but I don't think this is entirely the case
entirely like I use to think. I've been virtually unaware of just how many
products come from oil/petroleum. Microchips in my iPhone, clown paint on my
face, lots of stuff. I also didn't realize that it use to be, an investor could pull a barrel
up and such for 1$ and for this 1$ investment the would be entrepreneur could gain
from that 12k+ of labor man-power hours...
This is such a great topic. Petrochemicals form the basis of an advanced society with
chemistry involving plastics, fuels, additives, soaps, detergents, solvents, lubricants and
drugs. This is a huge problem. Workflows for synthesizing the basic precursors from nonpetrochemical sources are very much undeveloped. This problem seems undiscussed in nearly
all the media I have consumed on petroleum dependence.
Quote:
Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this
3/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
habit? Say "smash capitalism" and I'll smash your face cuz that's obvious and not
helpful. According to Herbert's peak, we need to figure out something soon.
Firstly, we must act decisively and rapidly to develop alternative chemical synthesis pathways
to sufficient economy of scale from non-petrochemical sources. Secondly, the efficiency and
ubiquitousness of alternative energy systems and power plants must allow for self-sufficiency.
Thirdly, after building this infrastructure begin transitioning all industries to use electric
power. Large scale rail electrification provides a pathway to work out the task of providing a
charging system infrastructure for vehicles and high speed rail transportation.
Switching to safer nuclear fission reactor designs like those for Thorium rather than Uranium,
using molten salts or low melting point metals as coolants, and improved safety immensely
reduce the chance of meltdowns and the damage they can do. Thorium reactor designs are
inherently safer because they meltdown in a much more controlled way. It gives operators
time to safely fix the problem and replace the reactor module as a unit.
The question will always be when the transition to alternative fuels and chemical sources will
take place, not if. Physics will force us to eventually. The question is do you want to be
heating your food with a wood stove or an induction heating electric range? But what good
would electricity be without the synthetic plastic insulation on the wires, currently made from
petrochemicals? I think materials aspect might even be the most critical part of a transition
away from a petroleum based economy.
Quote:
What do you guys think of the Devil's piss?
I've heard it's a rather strong drink.
__________________
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always
expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict
its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
The Following User Says Thank You to Loony Le Fist For This Useful Post:
18th October 2014, 09:37
Campesin@ Fuerte
Revolutionary Cumbiaist
Tweet this Post! #6

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 345
Tendency: Insurrectionists
Rep Power: 6
Reputation: 464
They have alternatives. Those greedy fucks just don't want to fork them over till they have
too. I'm not sure if I'll be able to stop them in time (or any of us lol), so we may have to see
what happens when the resources are exhausted. If not, we switch over to energy like
geothermal, and dedicate what's left for commodity production.
Once again, for car sake. I hope the solar panels from Looper come out soon.
__________________
Because the world needs music!
Porque el mundo necesita musica!
4/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
- MAS-MAS-MASTER
The Following User Says Thank You to Campesin@ Fuerte For This Useful Post:
Loony Le Fist
18th October 2014, 11:51
Palmares
<-- Twerk Twerk Twerk That Ass
Committed User
Tweet this Post! #7

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sherwood forest
Posts: 2,454
Tendency: Anarchist
Rep Power: 16
Reputation: 182
I think it's too narrow to talk about dire situation in regards to energy resources for human
usage as simply a matter of oil production/availability. The kind of energy consumption we
manifest is totalising, and hence I believe Richard Heinberg's description of it as "peak
everything" (as opposed to simply "peak oil") is more apt.
I don't think there's any grand discovery or plan that will pave the road to our salvation.
Moreso, as a start we need to actually be undertaking these alternatives. Some are of course,
but until alternative forms of energy production is the primary course of action, as opposed to
a miserable minority, the chances of a less dire transition become ever so remote.
Quote:
Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this
habit?
Well, as opposed to revolution... To be honest, unless there's some miracle change in
consciousness, it may well be that people will not even think about changing their ways until it
unmistakeably affects their own lives directly (let's hope not...). There's always the famous
example of Cuba with it's artificial peak oil (amongst others) from the embargo (particularly
after the fall of the USSR - their main trading partner until that time). Now they are possibly
the most self-sufficient country in the world. It's basically the permaculture hub of the world
too. It isn't without it's battles, but they have been forced to try... anything and everything
they have at their disposal (which is limited - no surprise - finite world!). Check out the
documentary How Cuba survived peak oil for a more detailed account.
I wish I had a more positive answer for you.
__________________
[formerly Cthenthar]
Revolutionaries don't spend all day on a messageboard. Action is realisation of the polemic.
"When the lie returns to the mouth of the powerful, our voice of fire will speak again." - quote EZLN
Development develops inequality. Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a
Continent
Last edited by Palmares; 18th October 2014 at 12:38.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Palmares For This Useful Post:
&, bcbm, The Garbage Disposal Unit
18th October 2014, 12:33
Tweet this Post! #8

5/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
Tim Cornelis
GRAMMAR CHEKA
Committed User
Join Date: May 2011

Location: Netherlands
Organisation: Breakthrough/Doorbraak; Communist Platform - Compas
Posts: 3,462
Tendency: Luxemburgists
Blog Entries: 3
Latest Blog Entry: Ideologies
Rep Power: 84
Reputation: 7704
Aren't there renewable alternatives from plants? The objection to this was, iirc, that it takes
up a lot of land, away from food production. Vertical agriculture is the solution there.
__________________
"Sweet potato tastes good; I like it"
-- Mao Tse-Tung
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tim Cornelis For This Useful Post:
Loony Le Fist, , PhoenixAsh, Skinz
18th October 2014, 13:59
Tweet this Post! #9

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,982
Rep Power: 26
Reputation: 1507
Skinz
Give me Slack or KILL ME!
Committed User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campesin@ Fuerte

I'm not sure if I'll be able to stop them in time (or any of us lol), so we may have to
see what happens when the resources are exhausted.
Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide, water,
sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8217382.html
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Skinz For This Useful Post:
Campesin@ Fuerte, Loony Le Fist
18th October 2014, 15:09

Committed User
Tweet this Post! #10

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Slumerica
Posts: 1,627
Blog Entries: 4
Rep Power: 43
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinz

6/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide,
water, sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.
That's interesting and while we may be able to do that; what we can't do is use or extract said
oily goodness if we've already turned the planet into a microwave and as a species are more
crispy than the burrito I just burnt.
__________________
18th October 2014, 15:20

Committed User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Slumerica
Posts: 1,627
Blog Entries: 4
Rep Power: 43
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony Le Fist

This is such a great topic. Petrochemicals form the basis of an advanced society with
chemistry involving plastics, fuels, additives, soaps, detergents, solvents, lubricants
and drugs. This is a huge problem. Workflows for synthesizing the basic precursors
from non-petrochemical sources are very much undeveloped. This problem seems
undiscussed in nearly all the media I have consumed on petroleum dependence.
Firstly, we must act decisively and rapidly to develop alternative chemical synthesis
pathways to sufficient economy of scale from non-petrochemical sources. Secondly,
the efficiency and ubiquitousness of alternative energy systems and power plants
must allow for self-sufficiency. Thirdly, after building this infrastructure begin
transitioning all industries to use electric power. Large scale rail electrification
provides a pathway to work out the task of providing a charging system infrastructure
for vehicles and high speed rail transportation.
Switching to safer nuclear fission reactor designs like those for Thorium rather than
Uranium, using molten salts or low melting point metals as coolants, and improved
safety immensely reduce the chance of meltdowns and the damage they can do.
Thorium reactor designs are inherently safer because they meltdown in a much more
controlled way. It gives operators time to safely fix the problem and replace the
reactor module as a unit.
The question will always be when the transition to alternative fuels and chemical
sources will take place, not if. Physics will force us to eventually. The question is do
you want to be heating your food with a wood stove or an induction heating electric
range? But what good would electricity be without the synthetic plastic insulation on
the wires, currently made from petrochemicals? I think materials aspect might even
7/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
be the most critical part of a transition away from a petroleum based economy.
I've heard it's a rather strong drink.

Thank you for this, I need to do more research on some things real quick but this is what I
was getting at in terms of the actual logistics of said hypothetical (albeit inevitable) transition.
To be honest, I don't even think it's a matter of providing an alternative more something
completely innovative, different, refined and advanced. Like for example with the electric
race, we now know that Edison's shit was dangerous, largely inefficient and so on compared
to the brilliance of Tesla (who's ideas are seemingly becoming more recognized today).
I mean, to me, even as stupid as I am, I feel like there already has to be a means of both
producing commodities in a more ecofriendly manner and for obtaining 'free energy' or
energy with low residual investment needs. This goes along with why I believe green energy
generation and supply technology has took recently due to reaching a point where it's less
costly and more productive.
Cuz I mean, in the states, it's been observed in local areas in my commonwealth and other
states that volatile chemicals contained with 'treated' water or water exposed to
petrochemicals, where they can light their water on fire and other shit. Here in the city too,
water is being affected and in poor boros like McKeesport, all of Northside, Clairton and others
where you know straight up not to drink the water or you could get sick.
Anyway, explain to me difference between the theory I posted and the other one, please and
thank you.
Edit: just realized that was Palmeras but yes.
__________________
18th October 2014, 15:24
Skinz
Committed User

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,982
Rep Power: 26
Reputation: 1507
Quote:
That's interesting and while we may be able to do that; what we can't do is use or
extract said oily goodness if we've already turned the planet into a microwave and as
a species are more crispy than the burrito I just burnt.
Well, that's a different issue. The fact is, petroleum will only "run out" when we want it too.
18th October 2014, 15:35


8/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft

Committed User
Join Date: Apr 2012

Location: Slumerica
Posts: 1,627
Blog Entries: 4
Rep Power: 43
Reputation: 3946
Quote:

Well, that's a different issue. The fact is, petroleum will only "run out" when we want
it too.
Let's assume, with the article you posted, they've already reached the level of one
commercial facility able to produce 1 ton of oil per blah blah. Let's also assume that current
socio-political or material conditions are also still in play. With the competition for selfsufficiency and more, attempts at state monopoly, how could this be a reasonable option on a
global scale? We need carbon dioxide (to a small degree) in the air. If we didn't have this,
plants and this we, wouldn't be able to breathe. This to me, in an abstract way, is like a user
saying they're trying to quit but if you just let em do a rinse, they'll be alright or some boozer
saying it's just one glass if wine for the heart. It's bullshit.
__________________
18th October 2014, 15:39
Skinz
Committed User

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,982
Rep Power: 26
Reputation: 1507
Quote:
Let's assume, with the article you posted, they've already reached the level of one
commercial facility able to produce 1 ton of oil per blah blah. Let's also assume that
current socio-political or material conditions are also still in play. With the competition
for self-sufficiency and more, attempts at state monopoly, how could this be a
reasonable option on a global scale? We need carbon dioxide (to a small degree) in
the air. If we didn't have this, plants and this we, wouldn't be able to breathe.
We have more carbon dioxide than we strictly need, we are pumping tonnes of additional
carbon into the atmosphere with every passing year. Isn't this the crux of the problem in
regards to anthropogenic climate change? I don't think that sucking all the carbon dioxide out
of the atmosphere is a reasonable fear to currently hold.
Quote:
9/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
This to me, in an abstract way, is like a user saying they're trying to quit but if you
just let em do a rinse, they'll be alright or some boozer saying it's just one glass if
wine for the heart. It's bullshit.
Except that trying to draw meaningful similarities between an individual with a substance
abuse problems and societies use of resources is incredibly simplistic at best and moronic
bullshit at worst.
The Following User Says Thank You to Skinz For This Useful Post:
18th October 2014, 17:12

Committed User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Slumerica
Posts: 1,627
Blog Entries: 4
Rep Power: 43
Reputation: 3946
Quote:

We have more carbon dioxide than we strictly need, we are pumping tonnes of
additional carbon into the atmosphere with every passing year. Isn't this the crux of
the problem in regards to anthropogenic climate change? I don't think that sucking all
the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a reasonable fear to currently hold.
Perhaps not but then again, considering the collective compulsion to over-consume and
produce should be noted.
Quote:
Except that trying to draw meaningful similarities between an individual with a

substance abuse problems and societies use of resources is incredibly simplistic at
best and moronic bullshit at worst.
How? You call me stupid all the time, elaborate me hearty. If you please because while, yes,
it's totally simplistic, I think it's useful in illustrating the insanity of the whole thing. It's the
fiend mentality. Let's do everything and everything to try to keep doing what we're doing even
if we recognize it's no good instead of trying something different. It's only until the choice to
try something different is made, that clarity, understanding and progress occur. Same could
be said of whole societies, no? I mean, does it not seem like a never ending cycle? Let's clean
te air to make oil to pollute to clean the air again to make oil to pollute ad nauseum.
I don't see what's moronic about drawing comparisons how people treat oil and how they treat
their drug of choice or their personal god and so on.
__________________
10/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
18th October 2014, 17:53
Palmares
Committed User

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,454
Tendency: Anarchist
Rep Power: 16
Reputation: 182
Quote:

Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide,
water, sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.
I think this is interesting, but I think getting stuck in finding saviours is dangerous. Of course
there's potential, but we can't depend on wishful hope.
There is already (founded in 2006) a company creating fuel from carbon dioxide, called
Carbon Recycling International, in Reykjavik, Iceland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_..._International
They are, as of yet, to produce a profit. They have, nonetheless, began operating a small
methanol producing plant near the Blue Lagoon in Reykjavik. The advantage this Icelandic
company have compared to the scientists in the article is that they've already had serious
investment, and they can source higher concentrations of CO2 from close by geothermal
power plants. Apparently they can get their hands on cheaper electricity as well.
However, the great energy needs it requires, and the very little energy it produces, equates to
a negative energy output. Exceedingly so, unless other alternative energy sources are utilised.
Not to mention that it (methanol) can't be used by current vehicles, and infact needs to be
blended with existing fuels: only low-volatility petrol. Which is more expensive than highvolatility, and the blending itself is expensive. Amongst other costs. So at this time, it's both
inefficient, and expensive, to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Methanol economy disadvantages
High energy costs associated with generating hydrogen (when needed to
synthesize methanol)
Depending on the feedstock the generation in itself may be not clean
Presently generated from syngas still dependent on fossil fuels (although in
theory any energy source can be used).
Energy density (by weight or volume) one half of that of gasoline and 24% less
than ethanol[12]
Corrosive to some metals including aluminum, zinc and manganese. Parts of the
engine fuel-intake systems are made from aluminum. Similar to ethanol,
compatible material for fuel tanks, gasket and engine intake have to be used.
As with similarly corrosive and hydrophilic ethanol, existing pipelines designed
for petroleum products cannot handle methanol. Thus methanol requires
shipment at higher energy cost in trucks and trains, until a whole new pipeline
infrastructure can be built.
11/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
Methanol, as an alcohol, increases the permeability of some plastics to fuel

vapors (e.g. high-density polyethylene).[13] This property of methanol has the
possibility of increasing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
fuel, which contributes to increased tropospheric ozone and possibly human
exposure.
Low volatility in cold weather: pure methanol-fueled engines can be difficult to
start, and they run inefficiently until warmed up. This is why a mixture
containing 85% methanol and 15% gasoline called M85 is generally used in ICEs.
The gasoline allows the engine to start even at lower temperatures.
Methanol is generally considered toxic.[14] Methanol is in fact toxic and
eventually lethal when ingested in larger amounts (30 to 100 mL).[15] But so
are most motor fuels, including gasoline (120 to 300 mL) and diesel fuel.
Gasoline also contains many compounds known to be carcinogenic (e.g.
benzene). Methanol is not a carcinogen, nor does it contain any carcinogens.
However, methanol may be metabolized in the body to formaldehyde, which is
both toxic and carcinogenic.[16] Methanol occurs naturally in small quantities in
the human body and in edible fruits.
Methanol is a liquid: this creates a greater fire risk compared to hydrogen in
open spaces. Methanol leaks do not dissipate. A methanol-based fire burns
invisibly unlike gasoline. Compared to gasoline, however, methanol is much
safer. It is more difficult to ignite and releases less heat when it burns.
Methanol fires can be extinguished with plain water, whereas gasoline floats on
water and continues to burn. The EPA has estimated that switching fuels from
gasoline to methanol would reduce the incidence of fuel related fires by 90%.
[17]
Methanol accidentally released from leaking underground fuel storage tanks may
undergo relatively rapid groundwater transport and contaminate well water,
although this risk has not been thoroughly studied. The history of the fuel
additive methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE) as a groundwater contaminant has
highlighted the importance of assessing the potential impacts of fuel and fuel
additives on multiple environmental media.[18] An accidental release of
methanol in the environment would, however, cause much less damage than a
comparable gasoline or crude oil spill. Unlike these fuels, methanol, being
totally soluble in water, would be rapidly diluted to a concentration low enough
for microorganism to start biodegradation. Methanol is in fact used for
denitrification in water treatment plant as a nutrient for bacteria.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methano..._disadvantages
Maybe they'll find a way to mediate this... But miracle cures pop up all the time, but I'm still
waiting for them to deliver. Until then, I'm still cynical.
Quote:
Edit: just realized that was Palmeras but yes.
Wait, what about me?
__________________
Continent
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Palmares For This Useful Post:
12/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
bcbm, Loony Le Fist

18th October 2014, 18:21
Manoir de mes reves

fka AugustWest
Committed User
Global Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005

Organisation: IWW
Posts: 5,852
Tendency: Respectful Discussion Activists
Rep Power: hidden
Reputation: hidden
Quote:
Yeah I know but I want more something substantive. Cuz I mean, I can campaign and
rail against fracking and oil and such and advocate for it's abandonment but then that
would lead to the inevitable, and then what? Considering again, just how many
commodities and so on are connected oil, petroleum and so on.
here is a link to a wiki article about the theory I mentioned in the OP, it's actually
called Hubbert's peak theory
I'm familiar with Hubbert's theory, but I think you've answered your own question. You can
campaign for X, Y, and Z, but then comes the inevitable "then what?" This goes for 'solving'
the crisis of peak oil as well - new products will bring with them the same logic which guides
all production under capitalism. The root - this logic - will not change. So you will find yourself
in crisis after crisis: oil, then bees, then radioactivity, then whatever, and you will always be
trying to find something "substantive" to change.
The real substance is the logic of capitalism. The real substantive change is the change which
occurs not when you, one person, act for change, but when we, as a class, bring into life a
new logic based around our interests (and hence the interests of the planet/species).
__________________
- Industrial Workers Of The World - A Union For All Workers -
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manoir de mes reves For This Useful Post:
&, Loony Le Fist
Yesterday, 14:33
Skinz
Committed User

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,982
Rep Power: 26
Reputation: 1507
Quote:
Perhaps not but then again, considering the collective compulsion to over-consume
and produce should be noted.
For what reason?
Quote:
13/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
How? You call me stupid all the time, elaborate me hearty. If you please because
while, yes, it's totally simplistic, I think it's useful in illustrating the insanity of the
whole thing. It's the fiend mentality. Let's do everything and everything to try to keep
doing what we're doing even if we recognize it's no good instead of trying something
different. It's only until the choice to try something different is made, that clarity,
understanding and progress occur. Same could be said of whole societies, no? I mean,
does it not seem like a never ending cycle? Let's clean te air to make oil to pollute to
clean the air again to make oil to pollute ad nauseum.
I don't see what's moronic about drawing comparisons how people treat oil and how
they treat their drug of choice or their personal god and so on.
Comparing drug or alcohol abuse with societies use of resources is stupid because it doesn't
help us understand anything, it's just alarmist rhetoric.
Oil isn't something that we simply need to stop using a la an alcoholics use of alcohol, as you
point out in the OP oil is something that makes modern life possible and as such oil is a
resource that we need to learn to manage intelligently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmares

I think this is interesting, but I think getting stuck in finding saviours is dangerous. Of
course there's potential, but we can't depend on wishful hope.
I'm not looking for a saviour, I'm pointing out that petroleum isn't going anywhere soon
because if we can find it in nature then humans will inevitably find a way to synthesise it or
find another material which can do the job but better.
Quote:

There is already (founded in 2006) a company creating fuel from carbon dioxide,
called Carbon Recycling International, in Reykjavik, Iceland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_..._International
They are, as of yet, to produce a profit. They have, nonetheless, began operating a
small methanol producing plant near the Blue Lagoon in Reykjavik. The advantage this
Icelandic company have compared to the scientists in the article is that they've
already had serious investment, and they can source higher concentrations of CO2
from close by geothermal power plants. Apparently they can get their hands on
cheaper electricity as well.
However, the great energy needs it requires, and the very little energy it produces,
equates to a negative energy output. Exceedingly so, unless other alternative energy
sources are utilised. Not to mention that it (methanol) can't be used by current
vehicles, and infact needs to be blended with existing fuels: only low-volatility petrol.
Which is more expensive than high-volatility, and the blending itself is expensive.
Amongst other costs. So at this time, it's both inefficient, and expensive, to say the
least.
That's all interesting but I wasn't presenting it as an a way of producing power (there are
better, more efficient ways of making electricity after all) I'm interested in it as a way to still
make petroleum once we inevitably run out of our "natural" oil reserves.
Yesterday, 15:27

14/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
Palmares
Committed User
Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 2,454
Tendency: Anarchist
Rep Power: 16
Reputation: 182
Quote:

I'm not looking for a saviour, I'm pointing out that petroleum isn't going anywhere
soon because if we can find it in nature then humans will inevitably find a way to
synthesise it or find another material which can do the job but better.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Hence, "saviour".
But indeed, petroleum isn't running out tomorrow. The race for energy resources continues,
whether in the Arctic North, Antarctica, or even asteroids apparently...
However, that simply extends the time frame we are looking at, it doesn't avert it.
Quote:

That's all interesting but I wasn't presenting it as an a way of producing power (there
are better, more efficient ways of making electricity after all) I'm interested in it as a
way to still make petroleum once we inevitably run out of our "natural" oil reserves.
You have missed the point big time. Where did I say I was talking about specifically producing
electricity? The global energy crisis is not a singularity, not about simply one source of
energy. And of course energy comes in many forms, whether as fuel (for example, in
vehicles), or as electricity. Hence, like I said before, Richard Heinberg not using the term
peak oil, but rather peak everything. I was presenting the problems with carbon recycling. For
example, if you look at the overall energy arithmetic, more energy (not just electricity!) is
required currently to produce the energy it creates. That is a negative energy output.
Everything has what is called embodied energy, which is the amount of energy required to
produce a given item. In the past, alot more of our energy sources had a positive energy
output, which often related to the easier extraction of the given energy source at the time. But
many of these sources have been exhausted, or are running low compared to demand, so now
more difficult sources are being used. Like the Tar Sands, which is a very energy exhaustive
venture. Whether it's the petroleum used, the electricity, the water, you name it.
Basically, if we are to get anywhere, we need to be energy efficient, which would look like
positive energy outputs.
__________________
Continent
Yesterday, 15:35

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,982
Rep Power: 26
Reputation: 1507
15/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
Skinz
Committed User
Quote:

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Hence, "saviour".
But indeed, petroleum isn't running out tomorrow. The race for energy resources
continues, whether in the Arctic North, Antarctica, or even asteroids apparently...
However, that simply extends the time frame we are looking at, it doesn't avert it.
There's nothing wishful about it. Petroleum isn't running out until we run out the the elements
needed to create it or until we find something that can replace it.
Quote:

You have missed the point big time. Where did I say I was talking about specifically
producing electricity? The global energy crisis is not a singularity, not about simply
one source of energy. And of course energy comes in many forms, whether as fuel
(for example, in vehicles), or as electricity. Hence, like I said before, Richard
Heinberg not using the term peak oil, but rather peak everything. I was presenting the
problems with carbon recycling. For example, if you look at the overall energy
arithmetic, more energy (not just electricity!) is required currently to produce the
energy it creates. That is a negative energy output. Everything has what is called
embodied energy, which is the amount of energy required to produce a given item. In
the past, alot more of our energy sources had a positive energy output, which often
related to the easier extraction of the given energy source at the time. But many of
these sources have been exhausted, or are running low compared to demand, so now
more difficult sources are being used. Like the Tar Sands, which is a very energy
exhaustive venture. Whether it's the petroleum used, the electricity, the water, you
name it.
Possibly, I've got to say I was a bit confused as to why you were bringing up profitability, but
I can see what you are saying now.
Is producing energy efficiently really a problem? I can think of various sources of energy that
could easily make up for the negative energy output that would be caused from producing
your own petroleum.
Quote:

Basically, if we are to get anywhere, we need to be energy efficient, which would look
like positive energy outputs.
Who's saying any different?
Tags
16/17
11/4/2014
Oil - RevLeft
oil
Previous Thread | Next Thread
Posting Rules
You
You
You
You
may
may
may
may
not
not
not
not
post new threads

post replies
post attachments
edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Rules
Forum Jump
Sciences and Environment
Go
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:51.
-- RevLeft
Contact Us - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7
Copyright 2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
17/17

Oil - RevLeft

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Oil - RevLeft

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

11/4/2014

User Name User Name

RevLeft > General > Sciences and Environment

Sciences and Environment

Speculate, formulate, deliberate, and repudiate with fellow leftists on the

RevLeft Shortage Alert

View First Unread

18th October 2014, 05:42

Join Date: Apr 2012

18th October 2014, 05:57

Tweet this Post! #2

Tweet this Post! #3

Originally Posted by rednoise

18th October 2014, 06:58

Tweet this Post! #4

Originally Posted by Illegalitarian

18th October 2014, 08:36

Tweet this Post! #5

18th October 2014, 09:37

Tweet this Post! #6

Tweet this Post! #7

Tweet this Post! #8

Join Date: May 2011

Tweet this Post! #9

Originally Posted by Campesin@ Fuerte

Tweet this Post! #10

Originally Posted by Skinz

18th October 2014, 15:20

Tweet this Post! #11

Originally Posted by Loony Le Fist

I've heard it's a rather strong drink.

18th October 2014, 15:24

Tweet this Post! #12

18th October 2014, 15:35

Tweet this Post! #13

Join Date: Apr 2012

Originally Posted by Skinz

18th October 2014, 15:39

Tweet this Post! #14

18th October 2014, 17:12

Tweet this Post! #15

Originally Posted by Skinz

Except that trying to draw meaningful similarities between an individual with a

18th October 2014, 17:53

Tweet this Post! #16

Originally Posted by Skinz

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Methanol, as an alcohol, increases the permeability of some plastics to fuel

bcbm, Loony Le Fist

Tweet this Post! #17

Manoir de mes reves

Join Date: Aug 2005

Tweet this Post! #18

Originally Posted by Palmares

Originally Posted by Palmares

Tweet this Post! #19

Join Date: Sep 2002

Originally Posted by Skinz

Originally Posted by Skinz

Tweet this Post! #20

Originally Posted by Palmares

Originally Posted by Palmares

Originally Posted by Palmares

post new threads