Getting off of oil.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Very simple. This thread is to dispel the idea that we could get off oil so easily.



www.ceoe.udel.edu...




The truth is, oil is used for more than just powering automobiles, and a complete disconnect from it isnt going to happen anytime soon....
edit on 29-1-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I dont see why environmentalists find this so difficult to understand. We can move to other forms of energy with a smooth transition that does not lower our standard of living. It makes me so angry that environmentalists are fooled so easily and thier issues are used purely to increase the price of energy.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Here is another good stat...

The simple fact is, even if you took every car off the road, it would not bring our consumption down to levels pre 1970's.

Oil is used more than just powering our cars....



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Even if super efficient solar powered cars and other free energy devices hit the market tomorrow, oil will be around for a long time to come with so much social infrastructure and technology based on it. Even with a global UN ban on oil it will still take generations to get the oil out of they system. CFC's is just one small example as they are still being used in some parts of the world as the wheels of progress do move slow.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
In order to get off of oil completely, we would need to change the way we store and distribute our foods. That means no plastics whatsoever. Can you see us getting rid of plastic water bottles, soda bottles, and other plastic food containers anytime soon?

There is too much money to be made by manufacturers. People need to boycott, but how can you convince a mother to use a heavy glass bottle instead of a light plastic one for her baby?

What about hospitals? They use plastic for everything, wastefully I might add. Just think about all the I.V.s and needles that go into the trash.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
So what! If we stop using it for fuel and look for alternatives for other uses then it is a good thing. Every step towards being free of energy dependency is a GREAT thing. No amount of squirming will change that.

Look at all the wars over oil. Look how it gives a few so much power over the many. Look how stupid it is to choose to depend on a resource like oil. we should look for a resource that is not controllable by certain countries or private interests. That is obvious to anyone who doesn't like being exploited.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
So what! If we stop using it for fuel and look for alternatives for other uses then it is a good thing. Every step towards being free of energy dependency is a GREAT thing. No amount of squirming will change that.

Look at all the wars over oil. Look how it gives a few so much power over the many. Look how stupid it is to choose to depend on a resource like oil. we should look for a resource that is not controllable by certain countries or private interests. That is obvious to anyone who doesn't like being exploited.


Any new form of energy production still has the same implications.

The only way you are going to remove war from the human condition is to remove humanity from the equation.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Are there people out there who actually believe that we could just stop using oil?

People can't be that stupid....can they?

Can they?




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Any new form of energy production still has the same implications.

The only way you are going to remove war from the human condition is to remove humanity from the equation.
New energy if it from a readily available source, would lead to less competition for resources and therefore lower likelihood for war.

A low cost energy economy would be very beneficial too for many reasons meaning all nations would require smaller resources again leading to less competition for resources and less likelihood for war. Less likelihood for war means a smaller spends on military and therefore less resources required leading to less.... you get the idea?

It doesn't have to be black and white. Some idiots will still want to kill each other. America is one of the leaders in homicide I believe and in weapons per head of population and it claims to be civilised. Any shade of grey is better than black and closer to white. Geddit?

Also, every recent MAJOR war NATO have been in has been about resources. Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (all oil relate). Along with Saudi Arabia already in the pocket, that is the biggest oil producers in the Middle East apart from Syria and Iran. Ooh, look who is next on the radar. :shk:

reply to post by nyk537
 
We may not be free of oil immediately but eventually we could. I have enormous faith in human ingenuity (science and tech) to get us out of this BLACK hole. Especially if people like Boncho stop trying to BS people into thinking there is no alternative!!!

Also, even if we may always need some oil, that is not a reason to choose it over alternatives that can be widely available. That choice is utter folly.
edit on 29/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
edit on 29/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


This is a very common misconception about this whole debate.

Nobody is saying that oil is the only answer for energy EVER and that we shouldn't be looking for alternatives. The message is that the alternatives are not completely viable as replacements yet so we need to stay focused on getting oil UNTIL they are.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

In order to get off of oil completely


We can make oil and have been able to since the 1920s

The process is known as the Fischer–Tropsch process.
en.wikipedia.org...

We have been throwing away oil in landfills for years.
Plus most forms of toxic organic waste can be turned into oil and removed from the environment.

Any organic can be turned into oil and this oil would have little to no chemicals like sulfur or other toxins that are found in natural oil.

Right NOW we could if we had started building the Fischer–Tropsch process.plants 20 years ago have no need for any imported oil from the middle east.

And the best part is not the oil but the cleaner enviroment without sewage in our water ways. trash in landfills leaching toxins into our ground water.

All organic manufacturing waste products could be sent to the local Fischer–Tropsch process.plant instead of getting into the environment.

There are few drawbacks to converting to a Fischer–Tropsch process recycling system and the are far outweighed by the toxins we needlessly put into the environment because we don't use the process today



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 

There is little effort being made to switch by the US gov't cos of the oil lobby. The US have a bigger black budget that any spend on research into alternative energy. Then you have the defence spend and the research into killing people (non-black) also dwarfing alternative energy research too. The US electorate must be collectively a bit slow if you can't see that your country was practically run by big oil since Bush senior right through to now

Texan's financed by oil and their lackeys. Bush was CIA before that. If you trust your owners good luck to you. You guys do the voting. You work it out.

Are all the Ron Paul fans on here sure he isn't in their pocket. Is the picture going to be more money for military corps and propping up big oil and the banks or a future with low cost energy with investment NOW? Will your next President be any different?

 

I notice you ignored most of my previous post to focus on why we should keep getting more oil. Madness. :shk:

You know the answer.
edit on 29/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
The process is known as the Fischer–Tropsch process.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sshshshhsh.....

we have to pretend all of these alternatives are LESS DESIRABLE than ruining millions of lives and killing people.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Really? Obama has been spending TONS of money on alternative energy sources!

You're missing my point again as well. Of course alternative energy sources are the answer for the future...but the future isn't here. Until we can get a reliable, efficient, affordable energy solution we have to stick with oil. You also must consider the time it would take to get EVERYONE on this new energy.

Oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon and it has nothing to do with oil lobbyists.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Pimander
 


Really? Obama has been spending TONS of money on alternative energy sources!
Not nearly enough.

And that doesn't mean that the Texan oil backed presidents didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction to help their greedy owners get the oil. Hundred odd thousand children DEAD. That's evil. Make no mistake.



Originally posted by nyk537
You're missing my point again as well. Of course alternative energy sources are the answer for the future...but the future isn't here. Until we can get a reliable, efficient, affordable energy solution we have to stick with oil. You also must consider the time it would take to get EVERYONE on this new energy.

Oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon and it has nothing to do with oil lobbyists.
It is staying TOO MUCH LONGER because of the lobbyists.

There are plenty of alternatives and there has been a brain wash of people to think there aren't.
The alternatives can't take over in a day but they could do relatively quickly if folks stopped believing the crap you lot are spouting. There are several scientists on this site telling you that. Do you think you know more than scientists about energy and other uses of oil? Well I'm telling you right here that you don't. How many years have you spent researching alternative energy?
edit on 29/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 




Don't assume you know anything about me or what I do for a living or in my spare time my friend. I can see there is no point in debating this issue with you. You've made your mind up and are unwilling to even have a rational discussion on the topic.

Oh well...I tried.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 

I didn't assume I know. I did ask.


Cool as a cucumber.


I have made up my mind. I agree we can't replace oil overnight. I don't agree that it needs to be anything like as important for "a long while yet."
edit on 29/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
What the world needs to do is get off of our plastic addiction... absolutely everything is petroleum based nowadays.

When was the last time you bought milk in a glass bottle ? Or better yet, how many of you even remember milk in a glass bottle ?!

Reduce, reuse, recycle, biodegradable ? Don't make me laugh... it's all the world ever knew before plastics became mass production.

I blame Tupperware.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 

For some things we have alternatives to plastics like glass. There are also bioplastics.

The term bioplastics encompasses a whole family of materials which are biobased, biodegradable, or both. Biobased means that a significant proportion of the carbon in the bioplastic product comes from renewable raw materials. There are two major advantages of biobased plastic products compared to their conventional versions: they save fossil rexources and reduce GHG-emissions.
SOURCE:en.european-bioplastics.org...

SOURCE: online.wsj.com...

This could work.

"As long as carbon footprint is front and center in the world's agenda, bioplastics will continue to grow," says Ramani Narayan, a professor of chemical engineering and materials at Michigan State University.

But another condition for success, he says, is the price of oil. "What can make or break [the bioplastics market] is the price of oil," he says. "If it doesn't go below $65 a barrel, bio-based plastic can be competitive."
SOURCE: online.wsj.com...

Bear in mind also, that if demand for oil as a fuel disappears, then using petrochemicals as a by product won't just be a side show to oil. You would have to buy oil for use just for producing non-fuels which will be less cost effective.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Do us a favor and actually research the processes used in creating bioplastics, as well as any other things you think can get the world off its dependence of oil. Present the numbers and how it would be feasible.

I am so tired of looking at marketing pamphlets when people say an oil free world is just around the corner....





top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join