A serious question about oil

13 posts / 0 new

I've been asking this question for a number of years now so since I'm a newbie around here I'd like your opinions on this question.......With all of our technology is it possible to blends different products together to make oil to be used in gasoline? I'm pretty sure we know what the makeup of oil is so why can't we manufacture it instead of buying it? It would create jobs right now for this country and well into the future. I've read where Hitler and his bunch did something like this many years ago but I also read that it was being hidden from the public. I don't know if it's true or not but it sure is interesting......Thanks

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

Comments

Germans in WWII managed to do it but it cost lot more energy and money to produce petrol (gasoline) then refining crude. Not to mention its much much dirtier and very bad for the environment.

Process is not hidden or secret at all. It's just too expensive to do so. Commercially its not viable. Cheaper to produce bio-diesel from plants and such.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am

Petroleum should be reserved for its special uses and not wasted as fuel. We have much better sources once we break the Petro-Imperial powers that be. Oil is their entropic fate. Empires fall when they have established their energy source and a new and better source takes over. Oil replaced coal which replaced wind as the energy for empire. What replaces oil is being answered today, and it will not be some artificial form of oil.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

it was coal that the nazis made fuels from. just google it, there's plenty of info

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

As previously mentioned, manufacturing hydrocarbon fuels is not a technological problem. It is purely a financial issue. Oil is relatively "cheap" and quite profitable. Whenever the actual supply of natural sources gets low enough, the manufactured products could become economically feasible. However, the environmental impacts of burning hydrocarbons (natural or manufactured) is not good.

As awful as the oil empire is, I don't really think they like harming the environment as much as they like making easy money. They rationalize away the environmental concerns when weighed against the easy money to be made. As soon as a more lucrative energy source comes along that they can exploit for their own financial gain, they'll jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat.

Our current options to force their hand are to either make the oil business less lucrative through trade policy and taxation or develop (with public money) the other energy sources to the point when those private enterprise pricks with all the money decide it's a better use of their piles of cash. Those pricks are, of course, the same pricks who say we are broke and can't afford to spend that public money on new energy development while we are subsidizing their oil businesses and giving them tax breaks that keep us broke.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Laborisgood,

What I am about to say is a joke, but it has real implications.: - )

: - )When talking about the conservative/libertarian/objectivistic paradigm, don't talk about force! Don't even mention the word! When you do, it will "force" people to close their eyes, and stop up their ears! The conservative paradigm HATES force! Even if standing on a railroad track with a train coming in at 100 mph, if you use force to push a person off of those tracks, you will be hated for it! Worse yet, if you are the one stuck on those tracks and someone is holding you to it, if you use force to make that person let you go, you will still be hated for it! : - )

Either way, force is a "no win" proposition when it comes to being liked by others... However, it is easy to understand. Nobody would actually like being pushed, even if it is to save their life or to save the life of a third party...

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

However, I must admit that pushing people around over an issue of subjective taste, that doesn't involve saving a life, is normally called... bullying.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

The comments about the future of energy being a financial issue are true, to a degree. But there's another issue much more fundamental beneath that, and that's the physics of energy itself. Energy cannot be created or destroyed (law of the conservation of energy), money can. You can print dollar bills in an economic system. But eventually, the energy returned on energy expended will determine the outcome of what can be done. No predator can expend more energy then it gets from its prey. No bovine can expend more energy than it gets from the vegetation it eats. No society can grow more people and build more things to trade than it can get from the energy it takes to do so. Money is just a measurement of that. Not the reality of it.

EROEI

Peak Oil and EROEI

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

Sprinlerfitter,

I must apologize. You set this thread up as a discussion to be serious, and I told a big joke. Sorry about that. Next time I'll try harder to match my post to the environment of where I am posting it.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

From Ren's Peak Oil and EROEI link:

It will take us decades to switch our energy infrastructure to clean, renewable energy. There is no way to replace the 85% of our energy that currently comes from fossil fuels any faster. We could do without, but that would cause severe economic hardship for the majority of people in this country who could no longer drive their cars or heat their homes. Drastically reducing fossil fuel use in this country would probably cause a severe recession with high unemployment and high inflation. We are going to continue to need oil and other fossil fuels during the time it will take to develop new technology and new clean energy sources.

What we should be doing is using the oil resources that have the highest EROI first and not using the oil sources like oil shale that have the lowest EROI. By restricting drilling, our market based economy will drive up the price of oil and create the economic conditions to more heavily develop oil sources like tar sands. We can’t stop the development of tar sands as they are in a foreign country, Canada. We will end up buying Canadian oil from tar sands to replace the oil we would have gotten from off-shore. Restricting drilling will hurt our economy by raising oil prices on the margin, slow economic growth, increase our balance of payments deficit, and hurt the value of the dollar. If high energy prices in this country cause energy intensive business to shut down, we might end up buying those products from countries like China that are less carbon efficient than our economy. All of this creates more greenhouse gas emissions than just drilling for oil off-shore.

Being against off-shore oil drilling might seem like a good idea to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is that this is a world problem that will have to be solved by taking into account what other countries will do. Off-shore oil drilling may be a smart way to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the long run, improve our balance of payments, improve our economy, and give us the profits we need to invest in a clean energy future.

That's rather depressing.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am

I like jokes and I also like to BS around like most others around here probably do. I came to this website to see what others though about the issues of the day good or bad. Besides if you need a place to laugh your head off I can give you a website that is full of wingnuts that will keep you entertained for a very long time.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am
Quote micahjr34:

Laborisgood,

What I am about to say is a joke, but it has real implications.: - )

: - )When talking about the conservative/libertarian/objectivistic paradigm, don't talk about force! Don't even mention the word! When you do, it will "force" people to close their eyes, and stop up their ears! The conservative paradigm HATES force! Even if standing on a railroad track with a train coming in at 100 mph, if you use force to push a person off of those tracks, you will be hated for it! Worse yet, if you are the one stuck on those tracks and someone is holding you to it, if you use force to make that person let you go, you will still be hated for it! : - )

Either way, force is a "no win" proposition when it comes to being liked by others... However, it is easy to understand. Nobody would actually like being pushed, even if it is to save their life or to save the life of a third party...

How about "persuade" or "cajole" the opposition towards a better path? Hell with that. Let's just bludgeon them with the truth. "Shame" might be the best tool at our disposal.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote .ren:

The comments about the future of energy being a financial issue are true, to a degree. But there's another issue much more fundamental beneath that, and that's the physics of energy itself. Energy cannot be created or destroyed (law of the conservation of energy), money can. You can print dollar bills in an economic system. But eventually, the energy returned on energy expended will determine the outcome of what can be done. No predator can expend more energy then it gets from its prey. No bovine can expend more energy than it gets from the vegetation it eats. No society can grow more people and build more things to trade than it can get from the energy it takes to do so. Money is just a measurement of that. Not the reality of it.

EROEI

Peak Oil and EROEI

You are absolutely correct, but your perspective assumes that all parties involved in the process use science as their ultimate guide. Those who worship money can easily delude themselves into believing anything that helps put more money in their pockets. The whole climate change "debate" is all the proof we need. The trick is to get an overwhelming majority of all people in all nations to follow the science while keeping the money worshipers fixated on all the additional money they can have by pursuing the alternative energy sources.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Is George Zimmerman Right?

It's time to listen to George Zimmerman. Seriously, and I'll explain in a minute.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system