|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: Peaking Oil |
|
|
(Since the EFL thread is dead I thought I'd start one where we discuss the solutions.)
That oil production may soon decline and prices will certainly go up is surely not in dispute. The market answers this:
1) Conservation, greater efficiency
2) Substitution (beef gets to expensive, you switch to pork)
This page has a rather good analysis of ethanol (although I think it's based on corn). But it lays out many ways to look at any alternative fuel source. well-to-wheel vs pump-to-tank.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4051
Also one must consider if it's really a source of new energy or just an energy carrier. For example it takes a lot of energy to free hydrogen from water. The burned hydrogen only gives back, say, 30% of the energy you used to free it. There is no source of free hydrogen on earth. Oil, by contrast, doesn't take much energy to get out of the ground. It provides way more energy that the energy needed to pump it out, refine it, ship it, etc. A hydrogen economy is really a nuclear/coal/wind economy.
An unfettered market will eventually solve the problem. Regulations and NIMBY can hinder the problem.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
2. If the thread is flamebait, it will be locked or removed without notice.
| Quote: |
| (Since the EFL thread is dead... |
|
If that isn't flame bait, what is?
If having two identically titled threads with identical topics isn't redundant, what is?
Mods, please delete this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Quote: |
2. If the thread is flamebait, it will be locked or removed without notice.
| Quote: |
| (Since the EFL thread is dead... |
|
If that isn't flame bait, what is?
[. |
How can this be flame bait? Isn't the poster known as EFL perma-banned? Who else would care?
Nor is it a redundant thread. It is a thread about the solutions not the problems to peak oil.
Back on topic. Nuclear would be the only answer. While sources like solar and wind are renewable, there are many places where such sources would not be feasible or not provide enough energy for the needs of such places. The only problem with nuclear power is where to place the waste afterwards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, EFL is no longer a user of this board and he's no longer here to argue the points he put forward. There is another thread on Peak Oil but the users seem to have lost interest as EFL is no longer a participant. The sole user of that thread seems to just use it to post articles about something we're all in agreement with. Oil production will decline and prices will rise. This thread, as noted above, I'd like to discuss the solutions to peak oil. Not sure if there's a rule against a lack of creativity in thread naming. The mods are free to alter the thread title if they so desire. If one is keane... I mean keen to see EFL brought back, then one should petition the mods to invite him back to Dave's.
A downside of using ethanol in the American system is that means using products that can otherwise be used as food. This drives up food prices. Ethanol can, however, be made from any plant matter. I believe Brazil has developed a good ethanol economy because it produces a lot of sugar cane. What was otherwise a waste product (corn is certainly not a waste product) of sugar cane can be made into ethanol. Since sugar buyers are largely paying for the collection of the waste products of sugar production, ethanol can be made much cheaper.
Also, corn ethanol can be produced artificially cheaper as corn is highly, highly subsidized by the tax payer. Corn became so cheap because of government money that almost every food manufacturer uses it. Corn syrup replaced cane sugar in almost every product that requires sugar. (Some Coke drinkers swear they could tell the difference in taste.)
It's a bit like in the soviet union where bread was highly subsidized. It was so cheap that farmers used as cattle feed. Which contributed to further bread shortages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
4 months left

Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sugar ethanol is more efficient than corn. The negatives are too high with corn, gov't subsidies, the high cost of converting it but recently there has been too much corn and it is being put into piles before being processed for food or fuel (see CNBC Squawk Box - Wed. I believe) The next commodity to fly might be soy beans (also see the same Squawk Box.)
The better alternative is cellulosic ethanol which comes from the stalk of corn or sugar. The technology is still being developed with one the leading companies being Sunopta - STKL/SOY.to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Were you not just asked by the mods to stop responding to MM2's threads?
Why do you feel so threatened that you have to spam the thread with multiple posts saying the same sentence multiple times?
Maybe we should start doing that on all YOUR threads? Hmm? Would you like that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Were you not just asked by the mods to stop responding to MM2's threads? |
Incorrect. I was asked to not respond to him. As he was asked not to respond to me, but he has continued to do so. Tell us, mythological one, why you do you not castigate him for ignoring Canuckistan?
Mythical one, how is it that he can start this thread claiming a thread he himself participates in regularly is dead? This is commonly known as lying.
Mythical one, why do you not support the rule of not starting multiple threads on the same subject? Why, pray tell, would one start a new thread with EXACTLY the same title if not to be childish? I ahve never seen this done on these boards before intentionally. This is a new low in childishness.
Mythical one, since a thread already exists and is active, despite the lie contained in this thread, why would MM2 not post his "solutions" there?
Mythical one, since he has already stated his "solution" that the market will take care of it in dismissive manner, and has done so repeatedly, why start a thread on something you have no need of?
Mythical one, can you show us from the Peak Oil thread where MM2 states he is an adherent to the PO premise? I can show you where he has stated it is a non-issue. Given this, why the "new" thread?
Mythical one, in which of the two following situations is MM2 lying? A. He claims the Peak Oil thread is dead because the OP is no longer on the scene. (An absurd statement in and of itself. No thread has ever been abandoned for such a foolish reason.) Yet, he states without any doubt that I am EFL. He is a liar, then, no?
Mythical one, if I am not EFL then he has been lying about that, or has changed his mind and now believes I am not EFL. Which is the lie?
Mythical one, are you going to argue MM2 takes the issue seriously when his first post on the topic was:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1237271#1237271
| Quote: |
Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post
Whatever happened to the debate on peak whale oil? We would soon be running out of whales to fuel our street lamps? |
Are you going to argue MM2 sees a serious problem when he wrote dismissively:
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| I'm confident the markets, the price system, and American know how will always do what they always do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mythical one, what say you to the following? Is his reason for starting the thread not that solutions are not being discussed? That WAS his contention, wasn't it?
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post
Whatever happened to the debate on peak whale oil? We would soon be running out of whales to fuel our street lamps?
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Clearly oil, just as whale oil, will run out. We don't use whale oil anymore because supply could not meet demand. We don't use tin anymore in cans because tin it peaked in price. Everything from tin to food has been predicted to peak and it would lead to chaos. But the fact is the markets don't like chaos. It's not good for profits. They're more than happy to invest in not chaos. Corn futures are up because people are eating more corn? No. The markets are betting on ethanol. Along with ethanol, we have oil sands, gas hydrates, nuclear, wind, etc. These can all come on line quickly. |
Again, solutions haven't been discussed? Hmmm... Let's look here:
| Quote: |
| I'm confident the markets, the price system, and American know how will always do what they always do. |
A repetitive point, as the article itself, and the OP raised it, but here he says:
| Quote: |
| Admiral Rickover was also a big proponent of nuclear power. He was the nuclear navy. |
Again, it was already stated. By EFLtrainer. Because it was in the article. Which tells you what? He didn't read it. This is not the first instance of him "informing" the discussion with something ALREADY SAID.
The salient issue? Solutions being discussed.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Also, if breeder reactors cannot meet growth or even stable demand once the ore is used up, it will only be a temporary fix and will leave us where we are now in the end. |
I would ask you to support that with a link but I know your answer. You've answered it some place else and I should educate myself, blah blah. |
Yet another example of solutions being discussed.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| 4 months left wrote: |
| That is T as in more than 2 TRILLION in the Canadian oil sands. Care to make a wager on that?? I suggest you do some research before accepting. |
You are indeed correct. |
Problem? It is not correct. Oil sands RECOVERABLE oil in Canada, for example, is only about 175 billion barrels.
Bigger problem? Oh! Look! Solutions being discussed!
| Quote: |
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post
The recoverable figure is:
| | | |