Gawain 0 #76 June 26, 2008 Quote Quote The cost of the transistion can't break us. That's a practical boundary limit in this problem, IMO. You're artfully (and not so artfully) dodging all sorts of questions this evening. True, the cost of the transition cannot break us. But how does using more oil help us transition away from oil. Using more oil puts us farther away from the goal than we already are. Do you really think we can transition 100% away from using oil? What alternatives will we use for the millions of petroleum products out there? Plastics, paraffin, lubricants...ad infinitum. Jets won't run on solar power. Battery technology is improving, and the investment is there to perpetuate it, but two-seat-$100,000-Tesla-roadsters are the answer. $1M-Hydrogen-Honda Clarity FCX's aren't ready yet either. As soon as people realize that reducing consumption, in tandem with development of the "alternatives" and using them all as supplements... How much oil would be saved on a macro scale if the US had 80% of it's electricity from nuclear? How much oil would be saved if clean-coal were in place for power and gas conversion? How much oil would be saved if homes could be heated with solar, natural gas? How much less would oil cost on the world market if the world's largest economy, and most stable democracy were to provide a stable supply? The problem of less oil is not solved by not drilling for more. The world economy is absolutely tied to oil. It is a lynch pin and it affects our abilities to diversify from it if we can't stabilize the supply and market which is speculating that is isn't.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #77 June 26, 2008 QuoteDo you really think we can transition 100% away from using oil? Nope, not anytime soon. Perhaps in 50-100 years. However, That's neither here nor there. There was a claim made that we needed to use more oil in order to transition away from oil. In order to transition away from oil, even partially, we need to use less oil. Anything else simply delays the problem and makes it more difficult, and most likely more expensive, to make the transition.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 June 26, 2008 Quote Do you really think we can transition 100% away from using oil? If we insist on drilling all known resources now, and worry about alternatives some other time, then ultimately we will have to transition to 0%. Your argument here is a strong support for the notion of setting aside these untapped resources till later since we probably cannot go to 0% anytime soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #79 June 26, 2008 >Do you really think we can transition 100% away from using oil? Nope. It (or oil shale, or equivalents) are too important as feedstock for plastics, chemicals, drugs etc. We should save it for that purpose and stop burning it for fuel. >Jets won't run on solar power. No, but they will run on biodiesel, ethanol, even nuclear power. >Battery technology is improving, and the investment is there to >perpetuate it, but two-seat-$100,000-Tesla-roadsters are the answer. They are part of the answer, for people who want a really fast car. For most people, a PHEV like the Volt will make a lot more sense. >How much oil would be saved on a macro scale if the US had 80% of it's >electricity from nuclear? Almost none. We don't burn oil for electric power. >How much oil would be saved if clean-coal were in place for power and >gas conversion? Almost none. We don't burn oil for electric power. >How much oil would be saved if homes could be heated with solar, >natural gas? A small but perhaps significant amount. Heating oil makes up a few percent of our overall oil demand. >How much less would oil cost on the world market if the world's largest >economy, and most stable democracy were to provide a stable supply? It would drop by .3% per the EIA. So it would go from $140 a barrel to $139.58. >The world economy is absolutely tied to oil. It is a lynch pin and it >affects our abilities to diversify from it if we can't stabilize the supply >and market which is speculating that is isn't. No, they're not. They are not speculating that it is unstable. They are speculating that demand is higher than production. Everyone who wants oil is still able to get it, and we're not seeing massive supply disruptions - so the supply is stable. It's just limited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
