The "Green" movement

[ebonyknight]

Wow, that's pretty interesting. Never heard of that. Got some links?

Sorry Ped, it's their point they should support it, if asked.

Getting mad about it is akin to me asking you if you have such product in stock and you get pissed at me for asking.

[Slytovhand]

How to you recycle toilet paper?*

Far North Queensland has apparently been using ethanol for years... they grow a stack of sugar cane up there, and then use the 'refined' husks of the cane for the fuel supply.

Bio-diesel is a lot easier in the cities - you get a stack of used oils from a stack of places (maybe not enough on its own, but a fair bit). Eitherways, using the biodiesel in the trucks that do the transporting, and going to a refinery that is powered by wind/solar power again limits costs (once the station has been built, you're only paying maintenance.. not a continueing source of energy such as coal).

As Seshat said... put a solar panel or 2 on every rooftop, and a few mini-wind turbines, and enough power is produced not only to power the house, but enough to put some back into the grid... a few thousand households will then help power buildings (of course, they'll have their own power supplies as well).

At the extreme very least, that will lessen the need for fossil fuels for just those things.

As for why... just look at a picture of LA, or Tokyo through all that haze. In Japan, they regularly need to wear face-masks because of the smog. Someone going to seriously argue that that is perfectly alright... or that it's a part of nature's cycles??

In the long run, all these enviro features will turn out to be massively cheaper than relying on a constant, non-renewable fuel source..(well - til the sun blows up, but by then I figure we'll find some other source of power...maybe gravity?)

Oh - Seshat... Solar Tower in NSW

And here's a link for a completely self-sufficient energy house... in Sydney

*Hang it on a clothes-line and beat the shit out of it

[ebonyknight]

As I already stated, OPEC is working very hard to prevent that, as they will lose out on shittons of money. I'm not sure when it will happen, but it most likely will at some point.

Regardless, that doesn't mean that we can't use this as a perfect opportunity to start conserving better and considering more drastic measures of conservation, like upgrading city centers to make them more inviting to live in, which would put more people near their places of work, cutting down on fuel spent on commuting.
Better public transport would be another way. I'm spoiled absolutely rotten because my city is very innovative about public transport and has done a lovely job between it's bus lines, the MAX train and Portland Streetcar.

But the people who want yards for their children and to have gardens, they are selfish? Is not confining people to city centers infringing on their rights? Just because you think we should have a "simpler" way of living, does that mean that your way is right?

You still haven't answered my original challenge. What sacrifices are you willing to make to make a less oil based economy work?

But there is a bit of a contradiction. You say that speculators are controlling the price. If that's true, then there is nothing that OPEC can do. In fact the recent meeting between Shrub and the Saudis, says this. They claim that the supply is fine and there is no reason to increase the supply. If speculators control the price then, increasing supply (by drilling or by OPEC pumping more) will not make any difference.

At least that's what you said.

Not really, as the reason fuel is very expensive is not due to supply issues as it is speculators driving up the price.

Again, since it is your contention that speculators are driving up the price, then when will the bubble burst? The "bubble" cannot last forever and that means that prices will fall/crash. When, one year, ten years? The real estate market can provide some if little guide.

Seems to me that if this theory is true, then prices will fall in no more than a year and a half. After all, it's not a supply issue, right?

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

*US OIL DEMAND, 2004: Over 20 million barrels per day, up from January 2002, when demand was about 18.5 million barrels per day, = 777 million gallons. If lined up in 1-gallon cans, they would encircle the earth at the equator almost 6 times (about 147,000 miles of cans) — every day. Here's another image: EVERY DAY, the US consumes enough oil to cover a football field with a column of oil 2500 feet tall. That's 121 million cubic feet. 55-60% of US consumption is imported at a cost of $50 billion+ per year, amounting to the largest single element of our trade deficit. In summer 2004, thanks to higher prices, increased demand, and lower production, record trade deficits of more than $50 billion per month were recorded, with approximately 30% of that attributable to imported energy costs. In September 2004, the US reported its lowest monthly oil production in 55 years, at an average of 4.85 million barrels per day.

U.S. gasoline consumption of 320,500,000 gallons per day (March 2005) works out to about 3700 gallons per second.
In March 2004, the total trade deficit was about $46 billion for the month, and oil imports were about 11 million barrels per day x $40 per barrel x 30 days per month = $13.2 billion, or about a quarter of the total trade deficit for the month. If March served as an average for the year, the total value of oil imports for 2004 would be about $156 billion — but this number depends on volume of imports (which is unlikely to decrease) and price of oil (which is likely to fluctuate). UPDATE 2005: For November 2005, oil imports cost the US $24 billion, and amounted to more than one-third of the trade deficit. *

Seems to me that demand is going up? Are you saying the the "finite" resource of oil is also growing, in keeping with the demand?

Besides, what is making the "speculators" say that price of oil will rise? Could it be that they realize that supply is/will outstrip demand?

You can't have it both ways.

[AFPheonix]

You misunderstand me. The current price bubble is due to speculators, not the overall price increase that will be due to happen. OPEC could burst that bubble by dumping a bunch of product on the market, but that in turn would make prices fall, so what would be in it for them? Also, even if they did put a bunch of crude out on the market (and it's the price of crude I'm talking about, not the price of refined oil products), there is nowhere near the refining capacity in the world to handle it.
Yes, rising demand from from other countries is adding to the price, but not at the percentage that market gamblers are. The rising demand will make a larger impact over time, but I'm talking about the current situation.
I don't know when the bubble will burst. I'm not an economist. Hell, even the analysts who watch this stuff don't know.

I have not once said that oil will not run out. I have in fact pointed out that the pressures of the current market is a perfect opportunity to put forward other plans for making us more oil-independent. Oil will run out. Our basic disagreement is what to do about it. You want a stopgap solution of drilling in this country, I say that is a short term, short sighted solution and that our better bet is to conserve on a variety of fronts so that the oil we do have left can be used for better purposes.

As for what I'm currently doing to cut my consumption: I am now walking to the grocery store whenever possible, I use public transportation now when it runs to where I'm going. (Obviously still have to drive to get to the family farm to train horses) I have reusible bags so I'm not consuming as many plastic bags. I live in a fairly energy efficient apartment that does not take much energy to heat. My car gets pretty decent mileage and I stay current on its maintenance to keep it that way. I've gone to fewer horse shows lately, conserving on the diesel to get my animals there.

As for people wanting back yards: older neighborhoods have backyards, but most of the newer developments going in have next to no yard at all as the house takes up the entire plot.
Besides, there's always nearby parks and green spaces. I development near me consists of rowhouses with a communal park and play area that abuts the houses. More density, just as safe. Want a garden? Ok, hanging baskets can grow edibles, there's also a healthy community gardening effort in my area where people can rent out a plot and grow what they want, or get into a co-op with a local farmer and get some pretty kick-ass organic yummy stuff.

[Boozy]

But the people who want yards for their children and to have gardens, they are selfish?

I am not likely to get much support for this, but yes.

They are selfish. I don't mean they are bad people, but they aren't thinking about the world's resources in the right way.

There is not enough green grass on the planet for everyone to have a backyard. Not if we want to continue farming (and eating). If you have a backyard, you have something that the majority of the people on this planet can't have. That's a bit selfish.

Again, it doesn't make you a bad person, but I do think the west needs to start thinking about these things.

[Slytovhand]

Aussie Aussie Aussie Oil Oil Oil....

Sorry.. had to :P

My understanding of the whole oil issue is that they sell it to you at outrageous prices because you'll pay it (and us... and everyone else who buys into the whole OPEC thing).

They do this, because they reckon that when the oil runs out in that part of the world, the other supplies can be opened up, and they can sell it back to the Arabs about $1000 a barrel... and thus your deficit becomes a nice little profit.

Additionally - the price keeps rising because of a) the above... you're prepared to pay for it without starting a war (oh...sorry....), and b) because of various tensions and issues around, the costs do actually increase in getting it to you (paying for security services isn't cheap!).


As to the big question of "What will you sacrifice?", too bad the answer isn't "time and effort" - as in, being very consistently vocal in lobbying the political parties to make faster change...or even starting up a political party to get the attention. Spam various politicians emails every day, run for congress under the 'None of the Above' party... all that sort of stuff... (smacking people in the head who don't think it's actually a serious problem :P)

Slyt

[Scamper]

Classic case of "Too many Eggs, Not enough Basket".
And as for the Price of Gas... it's no more expensive now than it was in the '50s. at least, here in the Nameless Country. The money is worthless.

[rahmota]

Okay on the matter of Bio-diesel especially. As I am a member of my local farm co-ops biofuel comittee I have some facts to share with you about bio fuels. The website you can get this stuff at is http://www.biodiesel.org but here is a small synopsis for public consumption:

Myth: Biodiesel is an experimental fuel and has not been thoroughly tested.
Fact: Biodiesel is one of the most thoroughly tested alternative fuels on the market. A number of independent studies have been completed with the results showing biodiesel performs similar to petroleum diesel while benefiting the environment and human health compared to diesel. That research includes studies performed by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stanadyne Automotive Corp. (the largest diesel fuel injection equipment manufacturer in the U.S.), Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, and Southwest Research Institute. Biodiesel is the first and only alternative fuel to have completed the rigorous Health Effects testing requirements
of the Clean Air Act. Biodiesel has been proven to perform similarly to diesel in more 50 million successful road miles in virtually all types of diesel engines, countless off-road miles and countless marine hours. Currently more than 300 major fleets use the fuel.

Myth: Biodiesel does not perform as well as diesel.
Fact: One of the major advantages of biodiesel is the fact that it can be used in existing engines and fuel injection equipment with little impact to operating performance. Biodiesel has a higher cetane number than U.S. diesel fuel. In more than 50 million miles of in-field demonstrations, B20 showed similar fuel consumption, horsepower, torque, and haulage rates as conventional diesel fuel. Biodiesel also hassuperior lubricity and it has the highest BTU content of any alternative fuel (falling in the range between #1 and #2 diesel fuel).

Myth: The U.S. lacks the infrastructure to prevent shortages of the product.
Fact: There are presently more than 14 companies that have invested millions of dollars into the development of the biodiesel manufacturing plants actively marketing biodiesel. Based on existing dedicated biodiesel processing capacity and long-term production agreements, more than 200 million gallons of biodiesel capacity currently exists. Many facilities are capable of doubling their production capacity within 18 months.

Can I use biodiesel in my existing diesel engine?
Biodiesel works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications to the engine or the fuel system. Biodiesel has a solvent effect that may release deposits accumulated on tank walls and pipes from previous diesel fuel usage. The release of deposits may end up in fuel filters initially, so fuel filters should be checked more frequently at first. Ensure that only fuel meeting the biodiesel specification (D 6751) is used.

Can biodiesel help mitigate “global warming”?
Biodiesel is the best greenhouse gas mitigation strategy for today’s medium and heavy duty vehicles. A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel. This is due to biodiesel’s closed carbon cycle. The CO² released into the atmosphere when biodiesel is burned is recycled by growing plants, which are later processed into fuel.

Does biodiesel take more energy to make than it gives back?
No. Biodiesel actually has the highest “energy balance” of any transportation fuel. The DOE/USDA lifecycle analysis shows for every unit of fossil energy it takes to make biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained. This takes into account the planting, harvesting, fuel production and fuel transportation to the end user.

Is biodiesel better for human health than petroleum diesel?
Scientific research confirms that biodiesel exhaust has a less harmful impact on human health than petroleum diesel fuel. Pure biodiesel emissions have decreased levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrited PAH compounds that have been identified as potential cancer causing compounds. Also, particulate matter, an emission linked to asthma and other diseases, is reduced by about 47 percent, and carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas, is reduced by about 48 percent.

These are just some of the facts about biodiesel and bio fuels in general which are an excellent and wise choice to make when compared to the continued usage of petrofuels for our common vehciles (a better one is to establish a better society based on reduction of usage in general though). But I have driven biofuel powered vehicles and to be perefctly honest I doubt anyone who isnt some majorly tech/gearhead would notice any difference whatsoever. The common driver barely knows what goes on with their car anyhow , heck there are some drivers that once you get past D means go forward when you press the long skinny pedal and the long horizontal pedal means stop they are lost. So as far as what goes in the tank most people wont care as long as the car runs, gets them where they are going , and they can afford it without a short term home loan.

[Boozy]

Does biodiesel take more energy to make than it gives back?
No. Biodiesel actually has the highest “energy balance” of any transportation fuel. The DOE/USDA lifecycle analysis shows for every unit of fossil energy it takes to make biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained. This takes into account the planting, harvesting, fuel production and fuel transportation to the end user.

I don't doubt that those statistics are correct, but what isn't taken into consideration is what areas they were culled from.

Huge swaths of North America still do not have access to the infrastructure required to get access to bio-fuels in an energy-efficient way. What we need to do is set up areas where bio-fuels can be grown, harvested, and produced all within a small radius. And we need hundreds of these locations throughout the country.

It will require more green belts around cities. That will be the struggle, I think.

[rahmota]

It will require more green belts around cities. That will be the struggle, I think.

Well this is true. Although more green belts and such is not a bad idea for whatever reason.

Also I forgot to mention the whole fryer oil resuse as biodeisel. So mcdonalds and all the other fast food joints may someday become the new OPEC.....

Whats really cool about that is that for about 2-3 grand investment (assuming you cant scrounge, beg or borrow the equipment) from the ground up and some time you can produce your own biodiesel from used fryer oil in your garage.

[Boozy]

So mcdonalds and all the other fast food joints may someday become the new OPEC.....

That's a warm and fuzzy thought.