Thread: Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Originally Posted by DDT

How do you know that oil is a 'finite ' source ? No body does! There is evidence to suggest that it is not made from organic decay but chemical reaction deep in the earth.

Isn't that a line of argument that is popular among those who also believe that there is no global warning? As far as I know, no serious scientist believes that, other than some in the US, who are probably on the payroll of companies like BP or a conservative "think-tank". The general consensus among scientists is that it is finite! Oil wells run dry and oil companies are forced to drill in increasingly awkward places, even considering the Arctic/Antarctic areas.

Originally Posted by DDT

How do you know that oil is a 'finite ' source ? No body does! There is evidence to suggest that it is not made from organic decay but chemical reaction deep in the earth.

I think regardless of the origins of oil it is obvious that the oil is getting harder to get, so we need to drill deeper and/or under the sea bed. That makes oil extraction more expensive and thus the alternatives can actually compete on the market. I think oil is an old technology that is holding us back.

Originally Posted by DDT

It is just plain dumb or even criminal to put into place policies to prevent the use of oil before alternatives to oil have been discovered.

This is a bit like catch-22: you can't allocate enough resources to develop the alternatives, so you still maintain the oil economy which has no interest in allocating resources to develop the alternatives. On the other hand, if you put in policies that restrict the oil economy, you urge the investors (including those very oil companies) to invest in the development of the competing alternatives.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree with Hanna, there are alternatives.

No, there are not. Those you speak of are either underdeveloped or economically inefficient. Oil is irreplaceable in the world economy. Hydrogen fuel cells remain on prototype phase, besides there are issues with water vapor which can increase the greenhouse effect even more. Nuclear energy is still too rare to find. You'd be surprised but the largest portion of worlds energy is still produced from oil. There is not only energy, there is also heating. Electricity can get you warm, all right, but this can also make you poor.

You didn't say anything about petrochemistry. Plastics, resins, materials, paints, etc? Hydrogen and nuclear power won't get you a plastic bag. )))

The oil is a finite resource.

Nobody knows that. According to what I've been taught at the Oil & Gas Academy (yes, I've graduated it) we should have run out of it already. Still there is plenty of deposits (and more are discovered) and the latest research doesn't fully support the idea about oil being a finite resource.


@Hanna, no, humanity won't stop using oil, quite the opposite it will consume more and more. I agree that there's no need to use cars, cellular phones, computers, etc. We can all stick to shepherding and barter economy of the animal skins and wheat. We can use the wind power to propel ships to move between continents and we can use pigeons to deliver our mail. You won't stop the progress, there's nothing you can do about it.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Originally Posted by DDT

How do you know that oil is a 'finite ' source ? No body does! There is evidence to suggest that it is not made from organic decay but chemical reaction deep in the earth.

Isn't that a line of argument that is popular among those who also believe that there is no global warning? As far as I know, no serious scientist believes that, other than some in the US, who are probably on the payroll of companies like BP or a conservative "think-tank". The general consensus among scientists is that it is finite! Oil wells run dry and oil companies are forced to drill in increasingly awkward places, even considering the Arctic/Antarctic areas.

It sounds like you don't know much then!

Originally Posted by Ramil

You didn't say anything about petrochemistry. Plastics, resins, materials, paints, etc? Hydrogen and nuclear power won't get you a plastic bag. )))

I don't think there is a field for speculating because in these things spending likely one persent (maybe less) of carbohydrates. The tremendous part burned in such black holes as huge traffic jams.
But even in this plastic entourage there is a place for reduction not so much in terms of saving as in terms of ecology because the world becomes one big dump of it.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You didn't say anything about petrochemistry. Plastics, resins, materials, paints, etc? Hydrogen and nuclear power won't get you a plastic bag. )))

No, they won't, but the bioplastic will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic

Originally Posted by Ramil

Those you speak of are either underdeveloped or economically inefficient.

That's true in an oil economy. But who and when would develop those and make them economically efficient?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Hydrogen fuel cells remain on prototype phase, besides there are issues with water vapor which can increase the greenhouse effect even more.

That's true that water vapour is the most influential greenhouse gas. However, it is easily recyclable (rains down), so the arguments that a small amount of water vapour generated by the engines would outshine (greenhouse-wise) the amount of water evaporated from an ocean on a typical sunny day do not make sense to me. On the other hand, CO2 is not easily recyclable, therefore it accumulates in the atmosphere (contributing to the greenhouse effect) and in the oceans (contributing to their acidification). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)

Originally Posted by Ramil

You'd be surprised but the largest portion of worlds energy is still produced from oil.

To tell the truth, I'm not really surprised. That's why, I think, we call it the oil economy.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Nuclear energy is still too rare to find.

Let's bring some He-3 from the Moon and we'll be fine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power)

Originally Posted by Ramil

Electricity can get you warm, all right, but this can also make you poor.

I think even today the price of the electricity is rising and there's no sign it might go down. The price is determined (in part) by competition and investment/development of the field. Say, you found oil deposits in your country backyard. Can you drill yourself and sell the oil yourself? No, you can't. But you can call the oil companies who have all the equipment, the experience, the distribution channels, etc. The same thing applies to the alternatives. First, you have to have the consumers ready to consume your product, then the infrastructure and the experience to produce it, and only then (with the volume) the prices will fall.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Say, you found oil deposits in your country backyard. Can you drill yourself and sell the oil yourself? No, you can't. But you can call the oil companies who have all the equipment, the experience, the distribution channels, etc.

In Russia you can't call oil companies in this case, only state officials. Because even if you find, say, oil on your own land, it doesn't belongs to you, it belongs to state and an attempt to extract it will be considered thievery.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

You didn't say anything about petrochemistry. Plastics, resins, materials, paints, etc? Hydrogen and nuclear power won't get you a plastic bag. )))

No, they won't, but the bioplastic will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic

It is very interesting but how much does it cost? There are many truly wonderful technologies that theoretically help humanity to overcome its difficulties but when time comes to practical realization something happens or some drawbacks pop up and at world's industry scale it wouldn't look all that attractive. I don't know whether the bioplastics are panacea, but I doubt they will commercially replace the oil plastics in the near future.

Let's bring some He-3 from the Moon and we'll be fine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power)

O'RLY? How? Do you happen to know any *working* fusion power plant with *positive* energy gain?
Here's a quote from the same wikipedia link:

Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.

First, you have to have the consumers ready to consume your product

#1 Put a period here. This means low price, but:

, then the infrastructure and the experience to produce it, and only then (with the volume) the prices will fall.

#2 See #1
While there is a cheap oil alternative nothing will happen.

Originally Posted by Ramil

It is very interesting but how much does it cost? [...] While there is a cheap oil alternative nothing will happen.

I would think it costs more than the plastics we know today based on the same logic that applies to the cost of the bio-fuel. It's the production cost versus the extraction cost. While the extraction cost is more economical than the production of bio-oil, the price of the plastic and all the rest of the derivatives of oil would be more expensive. However, as you have to drill deeper the cost of extraction might outshine or at least be comparable with the cost of production. So, my question is: should we wait until it happens or we'd rather be proactive? Пока гром не грянет - мужик не перекрестится.

Originally Posted by Ramil

There are many truly wonderful technologies that theoretically help humanity to overcome its difficulties but when time comes to practical realization something happens or some drawbacks pop up and at world's industry scale it wouldn't look all that attractive.

Conspiracy, eh? Who is interested in the alternatives?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Do you happen to know any *working* fusion power plant with *positive* energy gain?

Nope. I'm unaware of any He-3 based fusion plants in production. Because, there is no He-3 on Earth. Where the investments would come from?

Sweden has seriously tried to influence businesses, state-run operations and private people to move away from oil.

It has been reasonably successful (leader in Europe, I think) but I have not been following this closely.

But I think all buses in Sweden run on biofuel right now, and a large number of taxis.

It's mostly corporate greed and influence over governments that prevent a change. Some country or area needs to go first....
How many more wars will be fought over oil before it's all gone....

In a very sad way, it seems this tragedy has given the US a bit of a wake-up call about it's over-use and dependency of oil.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Пока гром не грянет - мужик не перекрестится.

Exactly! This is the most probable scenario.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Conspiracy, eh? Who is interested in the alternatives?

No conspiracy, just common sense. The alternatives interest nobody at the present time. Some are against them and some (the most) simply do not care.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Do you happen to know any *working* fusion power plant with *positive* energy gain?

Nope. I'm unaware of any He-3 based fusion plants in production. Because, there is no He-3 on Earth. Where the investments would come from?

No, not necessarily He-3, but any fusion power plant. By the way, you can always make some He-3 for testing. Theoretically any light element can fuel a fusion reaction up to Fe (iron), not just He-3. But we were unable to produce a controlled fusion reaction so far for a prolonged period of time, we only know how to make thermonuclear bombs (((

DAVE!! Please, tell me what you think about Mrs. Obama's trip to spain?