Oil

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't think it needs to be mentioned how big if a deal this actually is. I'm sure we have all ranted about this subject in regards to other relating issues but have we really sat down and discussed this? At least since I've been posting here I would be inclined to say no. What do I wan to discuss? Oil. Up until now intellectually I always figured the world's addiction to the crude stuff was silly and illogical; why put effort and invest into something which is finite and we now know leads to all this pollution? Profits? Yes but I don't think this is entirely the case entirely like I use to think. I've been virtually unaware of just how many products come from oil/petroleum. Microchips in my iPhone, clown paint on my face, lots of stuff. I also didn't realize that it use to be, an investor could pull a barrel up and such for 1$ and for this 1$ investment the would be entrepreneur could gain from that 12k+ of labor man-power hours. It does seem to be some liquid if you think about because if you follow this line of thinking, for the first time in history, we achieved free energy.

Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this habit? Say "smash capitalism" and I'll smash your face cuz that's obvious and not helpful. According to Herbert's peak, we need to figure out something soon. What do you guys think of the Devil's piss?

[Creative Destruction]

Sash camptialism.

[Illegalitarian]

Sash camptialism.

I mean I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but this is pretty true.


Oil already has a monopoly over the earth wrt energy and is already lining the pockets of energy barons, what's the financial incentive to go off experimenting with this and that?

Take away the incentive: smash capitalism

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I mean I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but this is pretty true.


Oil already has a monopoly over the earth wrt energy and is already lining the pockets of energy barons, what's the financial incentive to go off experimenting with this and that?

Take away the incentive: smash capitalism

Yeah I know but I want more something substantive. Cuz I mean, I can campaign and rail against fracking and oil and such and advocate for it's abandonment but then that would lead to the inevitable, and then what? Considering again, just how many commodities and so on are connected oil, petroleum and so on.

here is a link to a wiki article about the theory I mentioned in the OP, it's actually called Hubbert's peak theory (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory)

[Loony Le Fist]

...
Up until now intellectually I always figured the world's addiction to the crude stuff was silly and illogical; why put effort and invest into something which is finite and we now know leads to all this pollution? Profits? Yes but I don't think this is entirely the case entirely like I use to think. I've been virtually unaware of just how many products come from oil/petroleum. Microchips in my iPhone, clown paint on my face, lots of stuff. I also didn't realize that it use to be, an investor could pull a barrel up and such for 1$ and for this 1$ investment the would be entrepreneur could gain from that 12k+ of labor man-power hours...


This is such a great topic. Petrochemicals form the basis of an advanced society with chemistry involving plastics, fuels, additives, soaps, detergents, solvents, lubricants and drugs. This is a huge problem. Workflows for synthesizing the basic precursors from non-petrochemical sources are very much undeveloped. This problem seems undiscussed in nearly all the media I have consumed on petroleum dependence.



Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this habit? Say "smash capitalism" and I'll smash your face cuz that's obvious and not helpful. According to Herbert's peak, we need to figure out something soon.


Firstly, we must act decisively and rapidly to develop alternative chemical synthesis pathways to sufficient economy of scale from non-petrochemical sources. Secondly, the efficiency and ubiquitousness of alternative energy systems and power plants must allow for self-sufficiency. Thirdly, after building this infrastructure begin transitioning all industries to use electric power. Large scale rail electrification provides a pathway to work out the task of providing a charging system infrastructure for vehicles and high speed rail transportation.

Switching to safer nuclear fission reactor designs like those for Thorium rather than Uranium, using molten salts or low melting point metals as coolants, and improved safety immensely reduce the chance of meltdowns and the damage they can do. Thorium reactor designs are inherently safer because they meltdown in a much more controlled way. It gives operators time to safely fix the problem and replace the reactor module as a unit.

The question will always be when the transition to alternative fuels and chemical sources will take place, not if. Physics will force us to eventually. The question is do you want to be heating your food with a wood stove or an induction heating electric range? But what good would electricity be without the synthetic plastic insulation on the wires, currently made from petrochemicals? I think materials aspect might even be the most critical part of a transition away from a petroleum based economy.



What do you guys think of the Devil's piss?

I've heard it's a rather strong drink.

[Bala Perdida]

They have alternatives. Those greedy fucks just don't want to fork them over till they have too. I'm not sure if I'll be able to stop them in time (or any of us lol), so we may have to see what happens when the resources are exhausted. If not, we switch over to energy like geothermal, and dedicate what's left for commodity production.
Once again, for car sake. I hope the solar panels from Looper come out soon.

[Palmares]

I think it's too narrow to talk about dire situation in regards to energy resources for human usage as simply a matter of oil production/availability. The kind of energy consumption we manifest is totalising, and hence I believe Richard Heinberg's description of it as "peak everything" (as opposed to simply "peak oil") is more apt.

I don't think there's any grand discovery or plan that will pave the road to our salvation. Moreso, as a start we need to actually be undertaking these alternatives. Some are of course, but until alternative forms of energy production is the primary course of action, as opposed to a miserable minority, the chances of a less dire transition become ever so remote.


Now, my thing is, where do we go from here and how could we reasonably break this habit?

Well, as opposed to revolution... To be honest, unless there's some miracle change in consciousness, it may well be that people will not even think about changing their ways until it unmistakeably affects their own lives directly (let's hope not...). There's always the famous example of Cuba with it's artificial peak oil (amongst others) from the embargo (particularly after the fall of the USSR - their main trading partner until that time). Now they are possibly the most self-sufficient country in the world. It's basically the permaculture hub of the world too. It isn't without it's battles, but they have been forced to try... anything and everything they have at their disposal (which is limited - no surprise - finite world!). Check out the documentary How Cuba survived peak oil for a more detailed account.

I wish I had a more positive answer for you. :(

[Tim Cornelis]

Aren't there renewable alternatives from plants? The objection to this was, iirc, that it takes up a lot of land, away from food production. Vertical agriculture is the solution there.

[Lord Testicles]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to stop them in time (or any of us lol), so we may have to see what happens when the resources are exhausted.

Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide, water, sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide, water, sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html

That's interesting and while we may be able to do that; what we can't do is use or extract said oily goodness if we've already turned the planet into a microwave and as a species are more crispy than the burrito I just burnt.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is such a great topic. Petrochemicals form the basis of an advanced society with chemistry involving plastics, fuels, additives, soaps, detergents, solvents, lubricants and drugs. This is a huge problem. Workflows for synthesizing the basic precursors from non-petrochemical sources are very much undeveloped. This problem seems undiscussed in nearly all the media I have consumed on petroleum dependence.



Firstly, we must act decisively and rapidly to develop alternative chemical synthesis pathways to sufficient economy of scale from non-petrochemical sources. Secondly, the efficiency and ubiquitousness of alternative energy systems and power plants must allow for self-sufficiency. Thirdly, after building this infrastructure begin transitioning all industries to use electric power. Large scale rail electrification provides a pathway to work out the task of providing a charging system infrastructure for vehicles and high speed rail transportation.

Switching to safer nuclear fission reactor designs like those for Thorium rather than Uranium, using molten salts or low melting point metals as coolants, and improved safety immensely reduce the chance of meltdowns and the damage they can do. Thorium reactor designs are inherently safer because they meltdown in a much more controlled way. It gives operators time to safely fix the problem and replace the reactor module as a unit.

The question will always be when the transition to alternative fuels and chemical sources will take place, not if. Physics will force us to eventually. The question is do you want to be heating your food with a wood stove or an induction heating electric range? But what good would electricity be without the synthetic plastic insulation on the wires, currently made from petrochemicals? I think materials aspect might even be the most critical part of a transition away from a petroleum based economy.



I've heard it's a rather strong drink.

Thank you for this, I need to do more research on some things real quick but this is what I was getting at in terms of the actual logistics of said hypothetical (albeit inevitable) transition. To be honest, I don't even think it's a matter of providing an alternative more something completely innovative, different, refined and advanced. Like for example with the electric race, we now know that Edison's shit was dangerous, largely inefficient and so on compared to the brilliance of Tesla (who's ideas are seemingly becoming more recognized today).

I mean, to me, even as stupid as I am, I feel like there already has to be a means of both producing commodities in a more ecofriendly manner and for obtaining 'free energy' or energy with low residual investment needs. This goes along with why I believe green energy generation and supply technology has took recently due to reaching a point where it's less costly and more productive.

Cuz I mean, in the states, it's been observed in local areas in my commonwealth and other states that volatile chemicals contained with 'treated' water or water exposed to petrochemicals, where they can light their water on fire and other shit. Here in the city too, water is being affected and in poor boros like McKeesport, all of Northside, Clairton and others where you know straight up not to drink the water or you could get sick.

Anyway, explain to me difference between the theory I posted and the other one, please and thank you.

Edit: just realized that was Palmeras but yes.

[Lord Testicles]

That's interesting and while we may be able to do that; what we can't do is use or extract said oily goodness if we've already turned the planet into a microwave and as a species are more crispy than the burrito I just burnt.

Well, that's a different issue. The fact is, petroleum will only "run out" when we want it too.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, that's a different issue. The fact is, petroleum will only "run out" when we want it too.

Let's assume, with the article you posted, they've already reached the level of one commercial facility able to produce 1 ton of oil per blah blah. Let's also assume that current socio-political or material conditions are also still in play. With the competition for self-sufficiency and more, attempts at state monopoly, how could this be a reasonable option on a global scale? We need carbon dioxide (to a small degree) in the air. If we didn't have this, plants and this we, wouldn't be able to breathe. This to me, in an abstract way, is like a user saying they're trying to quit but if you just let em do a rinse, they'll be alright or some boozer saying it's just one glass if wine for the heart. It's bullshit.

[Lord Testicles]

Let's assume, with the article you posted, they've already reached the level of one commercial facility able to produce 1 ton of oil per blah blah. Let's also assume that current socio-political or material conditions are also still in play. With the competition for self-sufficiency and more, attempts at state monopoly, how could this be a reasonable option on a global scale? We need carbon dioxide (to a small degree) in the air. If we didn't have this, plants and this we, wouldn't be able to breathe.

We have more carbon dioxide than we strictly need, we are pumping tonnes of additional carbon into the atmosphere with every passing year. Isn't this the crux of the problem in regards to anthropogenic climate change? I don't think that sucking all the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a reasonable fear to currently hold.


This to me, in an abstract way, is like a user saying they're trying to quit but if you just let em do a rinse, they'll be alright or some boozer saying it's just one glass if wine for the heart. It's bullshit.

Except that trying to draw meaningful similarities between an individual with a substance abuse problems and societies use of resources is incredibly simplistic at best and moronic bullshit at worst.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

We have more carbon dioxide than we strictly need, we are pumping tonnes of additional carbon into the atmosphere with every passing year. Isn't this the crux of the problem in regards to anthropogenic climate change? I don't think that sucking all the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a reasonable fear to currently hold.

Perhaps not but then again, considering the collective compulsion to over-consume and produce should be noted.


Except that trying to draw meaningful similarities between an individual with a substance abuse problems and societies use of resources is incredibly simplistic at best and moronic bullshit at worst.

How? You call me stupid all the time, elaborate me hearty. If you please because while, yes, it's totally simplistic, I think it's useful in illustrating the insanity of the whole thing. It's the fiend mentality. Let's do everything and everything to try to keep doing what we're doing even if we recognize it's no good instead of trying something different. It's only until the choice to try something different is made, that clarity, understanding and progress occur. Same could be said of whole societies, no? I mean, does it not seem like a never ending cycle? Let's clean te air to make oil to pollute to clean the air again to make oil to pollute ad nauseum.

I don't see what's moronic about drawing comparisons how people treat oil and how they treat their drug of choice or their personal god and so on.

[Palmares]

Our supply of petroleum can be inexhaustible for as long as we have carbon dioxide, water, sunlight and the collective willpower to keep using/making it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html

I think this is interesting, but I think getting stuck in finding saviours is dangerous. Of course there's potential, but we can't depend on wishful hope.

There is already (founded in 2006) a company creating fuel from carbon dioxide, called Carbon Recycling International, in Reykjavik, Iceland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Recycling_International

They are, as of yet, to produce a profit. They have, nonetheless, began operating a small methanol producing plant near the Blue Lagoon in Reykjavik. The advantage this Icelandic company have compared to the scientists in the article is that they've already had serious investment, and they can source higher concentrations of CO2 from close by geothermal power plants. Apparently they can get their hands on cheaper electricity as well.

However, the great energy needs it requires, and the very little energy it produces, equates to a negative energy output. Exceedingly so, unless other alternative energy sources are utilised. Not to mention that it (methanol) can't be used by current vehicles, and infact needs to be blended with existing fuels: only low-volatility petrol. Which is more expensive than high-volatility, and the blending itself is expensive. Amongst other costs. So at this time, it's both inefficient, and expensive, to say the least.


Methanol economy disadvantages



High energy costs associated with generating hydrogen (when needed to synthesize methanol)
Depending on the feedstock the generation in itself may be not clean
Presently generated from syngas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas) still dependent on fossil fuels (although in theory any energy source can be used).
Energy density (by weight or volume) one half of that of gasoline and 24% less than ethanol[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-12)
Corrosive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosive) to some metals including aluminum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum), zinc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc) and manganese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese). Parts of the engine fuel-intake systems are made from aluminum. Similar to ethanol, compatible material for fuel tanks, gasket and engine intake have to be used.
As with similarly corrosive and hydrophilic ethanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport#Ethanol), existing pipelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport) designed for petroleum products cannot handle methanol. Thus methanol requires shipment at higher energy cost in trucks and trains, until a whole new pipeline infrastructure can be built.
Methanol, as an alcohol, increases the permeability of some plastics to fuel vapors (e.g. high-density polyethylene).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-13) This property of methanol has the possibility of increasing emissions of volatile organic compounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compounds) (VOCs) from fuel, which contributes to increased tropospheric ozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone) and possibly human exposure.
Low volatility in cold weather: pure methanol-fueled engines can be difficult to start, and they run inefficiently until warmed up. This is why a mixture containing 85% methanol and 15% gasoline called M85 is generally used in ICEs. The gasoline allows the engine to start even at lower temperatures.
Methanol is generally considered toxic.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-14) Methanol is in fact toxic and eventually lethal when ingested in larger amounts (30 to 100 mL).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-15) But so are most motor fuels, including gasoline (120 to 300 mL) and diesel fuel. Gasoline also contains many compounds known to be carcinogenic (e.g. benzene). Methanol is not a carcinogen, nor does it contain any carcinogens. However, methanol may be metabolized in the body to formaldehyde, which is both toxic and carcinogenic.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-16) Methanol occurs naturally in small quantities in the human body and in edible fruits.
Methanol is a liquid: this creates a greater fire risk compared to hydrogen in open spaces. Methanol leaks do not dissipate. A methanol-based fire burns invisibly unlike gasoline. Compared to gasoline, however, methanol is much safer. It is more difficult to ignite and releases less heat when it burns. Methanol fires can be extinguished with plain water, whereas gasoline floats on water and continues to burn. The EPA has estimated that switching fuels from gasoline to methanol would reduce the incidence of fuel related fires by 90%.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-17)
Methanol accidentally released from leaking underground fuel storage tanks may undergo relatively rapid groundwater transport and contaminate well water, although this risk has not been thoroughly studied. The history of the fuel additive methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE)) as a groundwater contaminant has highlighted the importance of assessing the potential impacts of fuel and fuel additives on multiple environmental media.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-18) An accidental release of methanol in the environment would, however, cause much less damage than a comparable gasoline or crude oil spill. Unlike these fuels, methanol, being totally soluble in water, would be rapidly diluted to a concentration low enough for microorganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism) to start biodegradation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradation). Methanol is in fact used for denitrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denitrification) in water treatment plant as a nutrient for bacteria.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#cite_note-19)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#Methanol_economy_disadvantages

Maybe they'll find a way to mediate this... But miracle cures pop up all the time, but I'm still waiting for them to deliver. Until then, I'm still cynical.


Edit: just realized that was Palmeras but yes.

Wait, what about me?

[Decolonize The Left]

Yeah I know but I want more something substantive. Cuz I mean, I can campaign and rail against fracking and oil and such and advocate for it's abandonment but then that would lead to the inevitable, and then what? Considering again, just how many commodities and so on are connected oil, petroleum and so on.

here is a link to a wiki article about the theory I mentioned in the OP, it's actually called Hubbert's peak theory (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory)

I'm familiar with Hubbert's theory, but I think you've answered your own question. You can campaign for X, Y, and Z, but then comes the inevitable "then what?" This goes for 'solving' the crisis of peak oil as well - new products will bring with them the same logic which guides all production under capitalism. The root - this logic - will not change. So you will find yourself in crisis after crisis: oil, then bees, then radioactivity, then whatever, and you will always be trying to find something "substantive" to change.

The real substance is the logic of capitalism. The real substantive change is the change which occurs not when you, one person, act for change, but when we, as a class, bring into life a new logic based around our interests (and hence the interests of the planet/species).

[Lord Testicles]

Perhaps not but then again, considering the collective compulsion to over-consume and produce should be noted.

For what reason?


How? You call me stupid all the time, elaborate me hearty. If you please because while, yes, it's totally simplistic, I think it's useful in illustrating the insanity of the whole thing. It's the fiend mentality. Let's do everything and everything to try to keep doing what we're doing even if we recognize it's no good instead of trying something different. It's only until the choice to try something different is made, that clarity, understanding and progress occur. Same could be said of whole societies, no? I mean, does it not seem like a never ending cycle? Let's clean te air to make oil to pollute to clean the air again to make oil to pollute ad nauseum.

I don't see what's moronic about drawing comparisons how people treat oil and how they treat their drug of choice or their personal god and so on.

Comparing drug or alcohol abuse with societies use of resources is stupid because it doesn't help us understand anything, it's just alarmist rhetoric.

Oil isn't something that we simply need to stop using a la an alcoholics use of alcohol, as you point out in the OP oil is something that makes modern life possible and as such oil is a resource that we need to learn to manage intelligently.


I think this is interesting, but I think getting stuck in finding saviours is dangerous. Of course there's potential, but we can't depend on wishful hope.

I'm not looking for a saviour, I'm pointing out that petroleum isn't going anywhere soon because if we can find it in nature then humans will inevitably find a way to synthesise it or find another material which can do the job but better.


There is already (founded in 2006) a company creating fuel from carbon dioxide, called Carbon Recycling International, in Reykjavik, Iceland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_..._International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Recycling_International)

They are, as of yet, to produce a profit. They have, nonetheless, began operating a small methanol producing plant near the Blue Lagoon in Reykjavik. The advantage this Icelandic company have compared to the scientists in the article is that they've already had serious investment, and they can source higher concentrations of CO2 from close by geothermal power plants. Apparently they can get their hands on cheaper electricity as well.

However, the great energy needs it requires, and the very little energy it produces, equates to a negative energy output. Exceedingly so, unless other alternative energy sources are utilised. Not to mention that it (methanol) can't be used by current vehicles, and infact needs to be blended with existing fuels: only low-volatility petrol. Which is more expensive than high-volatility, and the blending itself is expensive. Amongst other costs. So at this time, it's both inefficient, and expensive, to say the least.

That's all interesting but I wasn't presenting it as an a way of producing power (there are better, more efficient ways of making electricity after all) I'm interested in it as a way to still make petroleum once we inevitably run out of our "natural" oil reserves.

[Palmares]

I'm not looking for a saviour, I'm pointing out that petroleum isn't going anywhere soon because if we can find it in nature then humans will inevitably find a way to synthesise it or find another material which can do the job but better.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Hence, "saviour".

But indeed, petroleum isn't running out tomorrow. The race for energy resources continues, whether in the Arctic North, Antarctica, or even asteroids apparently...

However, that simply extends the time frame we are looking at, it doesn't avert it.


That's all interesting but I wasn't presenting it as an a way of producing power (there are better, more efficient ways of making electricity after all) I'm interested in it as a way to still make petroleum once we inevitably run out of our "natural" oil reserves.

You have missed the point big time. Where did I say I was talking about specifically producing electricity? The global energy crisis is not a singularity, not about simply one source of energy. And of course energy comes in many forms, whether as fuel (for example, in vehicles), or as electricity. Hence, like I said before, Richard Heinberg not using the term peak oil, but rather peak everything. I was presenting the problems with carbon recycling. For example, if you look at the overall energy arithmetic, more energy (not just electricity!) is required currently to produce the energy it creates. That is a negative energy output. Everything has what is called embodied energy, which is the amount of energy required to produce a given item. In the past, alot more of our energy sources had a positive energy output, which often related to the easier extraction of the given energy source at the time. But many of these sources have been exhausted, or are running low compared to demand, so now more difficult sources are being used. Like the Tar Sands, which is a very energy exhaustive venture. Whether it's the petroleum used, the electricity, the water, you name it.

Basically, if we are to get anywhere, we need to be energy efficient, which would look like positive energy outputs.

[Lord Testicles]

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Hence, "saviour".

But indeed, petroleum isn't running out tomorrow. The race for energy resources continues, whether in the Arctic North, Antarctica, or even asteroids apparently...

However, that simply extends the time frame we are looking at, it doesn't avert it.

There's nothing wishful about it. Petroleum isn't running out until we run out the the elements needed to create it or until we find something that can replace it.


You have missed the point big time. Where did I say I was talking about specifically producing electricity? The global energy crisis is not a singularity, not about simply one source of energy. And of course energy comes in many forms, whether as fuel (for example, in vehicles), or as electricity. Hence, like I said before, Richard Heinberg not using the term peak oil, but rather peak everything. I was presenting the problems with carbon recycling. For example, if you look at the overall energy arithmetic, more energy (not just electricity!) is required currently to produce the energy it creates. That is a negative energy output. Everything has what is called embodied energy, which is the amount of energy required to produce a given item. In the past, alot more of our energy sources had a positive energy output, which often related to the easier extraction of the given energy source at the time. But many of these sources have been exhausted, or are running low compared to demand, so now more difficult sources are being used. Like the Tar Sands, which is a very energy exhaustive venture. Whether it's the petroleum used, the electricity, the water, you name it.

Possibly, I've got to say I was a bit confused as to why you were bringing up profitability, but I can see what you are saying now.

Is producing energy efficiently really a problem? I can think of various sources of energy that could easily make up for the negative energy output that would be caused from producing your own petroleum.


Basically, if we are to get anywhere, we need to be energy efficient, which would look like positive energy outputs.

Who's saying any different?

[John Nada]

You could make petroleum out of CO2, just like you can make coal from diamonds. Possible, but not practical on the planet Earth. The reaction that's used is called water-gas shift reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-gas_shift_reaction), in particular the Fischer-Tropsch process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch). The reaction of carbon, air and water has been known for a very long time, like earth, fire, water and wind. CO+H2O CO2+H2 and CO+3H2 CH4+H2O, along with a bunch of other reactions. It's an equilibrium that goes both ways, so pumping a shitload of air over catalysts at high or low temperatures will produce some hydrocarbons. Problem is you have to use a lot of energy to perform the reaction, which wouldn't be a problem on Venus and maybe necessary on Mars. And since this makes hydrogen in the first place, why not use that for fuel? Plastics and other stuff can be biosynthesized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic). The ammonia for microbe growth can yet again be made from hydrogen from the gas-shift reaction.

What worries me more is running out of phosphorus. This isn't as common as nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, yet is essential for life. Their isn't enough bones and batshit to replace phosphate ore for fertilizers.