|
U-Know! Forum » Respect |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PMM 3155 posts |
Apr 01, 2012, 13:04
|
||
|
I think it's unsurprising that we've found no energy source more efficient than millions of years of stored solar energy that oil represents. The key thing is an equation known as the Energy Return on Energy Invested, or EROEI. When you take into account the energy required in obtaining other forms of energy, you find that the easily obtainable sources tend to be very diffuse, while the denser sources are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, both in terms of the cost of obtaining them, and the energy required to obtain them. If you used 100 barrels of oil to drill a hole that you managed to suck 80 barrels of oil out of, you'd have been better off not drilling for it in the first place. It's estimated that to support a society as complex as Modern western Industrial Capitalist society, you need an EROEI in double figures. Simply put, order requires energy. If you expend no energy keeping your house tidy, things will quickly become chaotic, disordered, and the phenomenon is scalable. This matters hugely, because if we do face a long and permanent decline in the amount of energy available to us, there will be less of everything for everyone. So there are some extremely clever people looking for alternatives. If some group were to find a *something* that did match the EROEI of oil, unimaginable riches would be available to them. Sadly, we're pushing against the limits imposed by a finite planet and the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|||
|
rockhopper 275 posts |
Apr 01, 2012, 13:57
|
||
Theres also an economic arguement as to why alternatives are not available. The revenue from fuel duties is staggering. If the water/hydrogen powered car was generally available, governments would have to do something pretty drastic to recoup those losses. As it is, we have all grown used to the stealth tax fuel duties represent, and pay up. If alternatives were available, and fuel duties dried up, where would that money come from? The average motorist pays thousands in stealth tax every year. Say for instance, the govt said 'right, we're getting that money back by making road tax 2,500 per year.' Not going to go down very well is it? But you're right. The road we are on appears to be leading somewhere very unpleasant.
|
|||
MrsSevenrealm 204 posts |
Apr 01, 2012, 14:27
|
||
|
Ah, but it's what they spend your taxes on. Witness the waste, the absolute lack of planning on so many levels. Consequences. I give up.
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Apr 01, 2012, 14:35
|
||
|
Once again, you need to look at the energy throughput. Hydrogen is not an energy source. The reason it isn't an energy source is because it is not freely available. You have to use energy to obtain it, for example, by hydrolysis of water using electricity. Whatever process is used provides potential energy in the form of atomic hydrogen. This can then be reacted with oxygen to provide heat. But you could have used the electricity you used to create the atomic hydrogen to provide heat more efficiently (no process is 100% efficient) The Hydrogen Economy hasn't exploded into fruition when crude oil prices have quadrupled over the last decade precisely because of this. And the same applies to all the other alternatives that we know about. Some environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, James Lovelock, and Mark Lynas, argue that a particular form of nuclear power known as PRISM reactors can provide a significant fraction of our energy needs without many of the dangers inherent in other forms of fission based power production. I'm keeping an open mind on this at the moment. So I have to disagree that it's all some big money making scheme by big business/the state. Until the last couple of years, the price of fuel, adjusted for inflation, remained pretty much stable for several decades, as This Graph shows.
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Apr 01, 2012, 16:05
Apr 01, 2012, 15:07
|
||
|
I never was big on theories. My eyes would glaze over whenever someone started talking about dialectical materialism or whatever. So I've never been much of one for dogma. I have respect for the militants because I knew them for what they were. Committed, sincere people who were trying to make the world a better place. And I do think that includes (edit: included) Deggsy. He had the charisma, like Kilroy silk for example, to have got an elevated position in the Labour Party without aligning himself with a Trotskyist faction. Probably would have done a lot better for himself if anything. These days, I'm not aligned with or a member of any political party. I have friends who I still keep in touch with from the Militant/LPYS. Some of them have continued with trades unionist/party political/single issue activism. Others have put their heads back below the parapet. I agree that we agree :) Parliamentary democracy is bollocks. Still, as I said right at the beginning, it's nice to have something come along that cocks a snook at the tossers in charge. We seem to spend all of our time fighting a rearguard action just to maintain people's living standards, rather than ever getting to a point where we call for some better alternative.
|
|||
|
MrsSevenrealm 204 posts |
Apr 01, 2012, 16:24
|
||
Exactly.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Apr 01, 2012, 17:38
|
||
|
Stray's posts pretty much sum up how I feel re: Gorgeous George. What defines him as far as policy is concerned is what he 'isn't', not what he 'is'. He may 'say' some things I find myself nodding appreciately to, nonetheless his status as a Saddam (and his "indefatigiblity") sucking, self-serving glory hound render him actively inert as something I could genuinely believe in. He may well have thought that being on Celebrity Big Brother was a way of taking 'radical' (as in not anyone from the main parties) politics to the 'masses', but it just served to underline he'd probably go to the opening of an envelope if it furthered the Brand of "George". Whilst I am in agreement that, yes, it's always a jolly wheeze when the usual suspects get a bloody nose in these matters, I'd rather it'd been the bloody Monster Raving Loony Party that had done it rather than that appalling ego-on-legs. I mean what did he do straight after the election? Knuckle down to implementing policy? No, he stood on top of a double-decker bus having a victory parade and basking in his own reflected glory. He could announce a cure for cancer and I'd still think he was a dodgy toolbag.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Apr 01, 2012, 17:47
|
||
I expect there's enough ego overflow to plug it for a bit!
|
|||
|
rockhopper 275 posts |
Apr 02, 2012, 01:03
|
||
Wish I had your faith in all these graphs and statistics! Next you'll be saying it was a plane that hit the pentagon when the towers fell down, and not a missile. And before anyone jumps up and says not possible, Nazis/ Reichstag. Oldest trick in the book.
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Apr 02, 2012, 01:38
Apr 02, 2012, 01:34
|
||
Bye.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
