4 ms·

>You need basically EVERYONE to agree to stop, This is the thing I don’t understand from climate... um... super activists. We know of no more efficient, safe,

>You need basically EVERYONE to agree to stop, This is the thing I don’t understand from climate... um... super activists. We know of no more efficient, safe, and easily convertible storage of energy than petrol hydrocarbons. So even if everyone else stopped today, someone will keep using them, and that group will have an advantage over their peers. Second, if we stop using oil in engines, guess what? It’ll go into lubes, and plastics, and other forms. We have a material we know no better alternative for. You know how composites like carbon fiber enable windmills and solar panels and electric vehicles, and all the new cool things? Carbon fiber is non-recyclable burnt plastic. It’s very oil heavy in production, they take plastic bars, spin, spool, and burn them to get the fiber. It’s extremely non-green, then you have the resins and epoxy that uses oil in its production, and all the greases, lubes, finishes, etc. If you agreed to get everyone to stop, it basically can’t stop. Someone won’t and they’ll do well because of it in the short term. And obviously we’ll need oil for far more than cars, we use most of it in energy production and cars, but remove those and we’ll just usher in a different era of plastics and composites. Now of course you can argue plastic in a landfill is better than vaporized in the atmosphere! But to pretend big oil will just “go away” is very foolish.

cjslep 7y ago
> We know of no more efficient, safe, and easily convertible storage of energy than petrol hydrocarbons. There's a lot to unpack here. "Efficiency" of a hydrocarbon doesn't make sense, unless you talk about a specific application, such as an internal combustion engine, in which case you're comparing 100+ year old technology and chemistry to relatively newer forms that simply haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient". Depending on what exact "efficiency" is being measured ("energy density"? Nuclear wins) will open more questions than answers. "Safety" is another interesting one. For example, regions of the world with high concentration of oil reserves, such as Venezuela and the middle East, have seen a lot of combat and instability post-WW 2. I don't think those regions are comparatively safe. While, on the other hand, fighting over wind and sunlight could happen, I wouldn't count on it. "Easily convertable storage" I don't even know what this means. Once a fuel has been converted to electricity, or kinetic energy, the storage problem is all the same.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >There's a lot to unpack here. "Efficiency" of a hydrocarbon doesn't make sense, unless you talk about a specific application, such as an internal combustion engine, in which case you're comparing 100+ year old technology and chemistry to relatively newer forms that simply haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient". Depending on what exact "efficiency" is being measured ("energy density"? Nuclear wins) will open more questions than answers. It's not that controversial. The "haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient" is not relevant, as the parent means among forms existing today (he said "we know of". Even if there might be a future more efficient, we don't "know of" it yet). And the measurement is usually EROI, and looks to be as the parent said: https://ruayres.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rua-eroi-fig-5.png https://ruayres.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rua-eroi-fig-5.p... >I don't think those regions are comparatively safe. I'd say the parent doesn't talk about that safety, it's about in applications, transport, etc. Wars happened before oil too...
  - cjslep 7y ago
    You took my interpretation of efficiency in a totally unexpected direction, which is cool and let me learn something new! However I don't buy EROEI as being a good measure in a discussion about long term climate change and the wholistic picture of an energy source. EROEI is too short-term focused (on energy break even) instead of looking at the lifetime of an energy source. Oil plants and internal combustion cars need to account for the years of shipping logistical distribution and mining/drilling when looking at the lifetime of an oil plant or the lifetime of the car. Compared to the marginal energy cost of maintenance of a PV cell or wind turbine over the lifetime of those power generating structures. The EROEI at the end of the energy production lifetime may favor energy-intensive short term sunk costs with low long term marginal costs (wind and sun) instead of favoring low-entry-incumbents with high energy operating costs (oil and it's existing logistical infrastructure). So I disagree it's "not controversial" and I also think looking at EROEI for the break even point is kind of like looking at bullet holes on planes without Abraham Wald around.
    - coldtea 7y ago
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
Cheap if you continue to escape paying carbon taxes. Gas should have a $2 tax to offset the carbon it puts in the air and a 2-10$ tax for the historically untaxed pollution. (per gallon). The production of oil for plastics and other materials is paltry compared to fuel. Of course that will continue. The point of this activism is to start the process of disincentivizing oil production, since governments are completely corrupted by oligarchy and economics for the rich and won't impose proper regulation. Your straw mans are "all oil production will cease immediately" (impossible) and "oil is the BEST POWER SOURCE" (it's not due to impending climate crises) The point of the article is that activism is actually having a potential effect on financing of oil extraction projects. Which is utterly shocking, I didn't think that was possible.
diffeomorphism 7y ago
If we decreased use by 90%, then it would still be used for 10%? And "big oil" would still be "big" then? It seems you are arguing at points nobody made.
coldtea 7y ago
>We know of no more efficient, safe, and easily convertible storage of energy than petrol hydrocarbons. So even if everyone else stopped today, someone will keep using them, and that group will have an advantage over their peers. Or, you know, that group gets thrown to prison or bombed, and problem solved, how about that? >Second, if we stop using oil in engines, guess what? It’ll go into lubes, and plastics, and other forms. We have a material we know no better alternative for. Plastics compared to oil energy is a tiny percentage (which, still has its own problems). But even if we had to do without both, and without modern conveniences, like plastics, and carbon fiber, and tons of others, and e.g. go back to a 1900 lifestyle, it still beats dying in a climate apocalypse (and returning to a 1900 B.C. lifestyle).
- mrep 7y ago
  > Or, you know, that group gets thrown to prison or bombed, and problem solved, how about that? Are you really arguing we go to war with every country who doesn't stop using fossil fuels? > beats dying in a climate apocalypse I'm 100% for paying more to switch to 100% renewable energy, but none of the effects of climate change [0] will in any way result in an apocalyptic future. [0]: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >I'm 100% for paying more to switch to 100% renewable energy, but none of the effects of climate change [0] will in any way result in an apocalyptic future. The NASA effects are the Disney version. As many countries have already found (and many will discover) you can get an "apocalyptic future" with seemingly small changes. Changes pile up beyond the immediate ecological impact -- e.g. droughts and climate disasters mean more immigration, tension between neighborhooding countries, wars for resources (if wars of oil where bad, wait for wars for water), increased lack of global collaboration and so on...
    - mrep 7y ago
      > The NASA effects are the Disney version. As many countries have already found (and many will discover) you can get an "apocalyptic future" with seemingly small changes. What countries have experienced an "apocalyptic future" due to climate change seeing as you are smarter than NASA? > if wars of oil were bad, wait for wars for water How! I am flabbergasted you think the trillion dollar market for oil will be usurped by water. Pretty much all cities are based around water sources (rivers usually).

cjslep 7y ago

> We know of no more efficient, safe, and easily convertible storage of energy than petrol hydrocarbons. There's a lot to unpack here. "Efficiency" of a hydrocarbon doesn't make sense, unless you talk about a specific application, such as an internal combustion engine, in which case you're comparing 100+ year old technology and chemistry to relatively newer forms that simply haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient". Depending on what exact "efficiency" is being measured ("energy density"? Nuclear wins) will open more questions than answers. "Safety" is another interesting one. For example, regions of the world with high concentration of oil reserves, such as Venezuela and the middle East, have seen a lot of combat and instability post-WW 2. I don't think those regions are comparatively safe. While, on the other hand, fighting over wind and sunlight could happen, I wouldn't count on it. "Easily convertable storage" I don't even know what this means. Once a fuel has been converted to electricity, or kinetic energy, the storage problem is all the same.

coldtea 7y ago
>There's a lot to unpack here. "Efficiency" of a hydrocarbon doesn't make sense, unless you talk about a specific application, such as an internal combustion engine, in which case you're comparing 100+ year old technology and chemistry to relatively newer forms that simply haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient". Depending on what exact "efficiency" is being measured ("energy density"? Nuclear wins) will open more questions than answers. It's not that controversial. The "haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient" is not relevant, as the parent means among forms existing today (he said "we know of". Even if there might be a future more efficient, we don't "know of" it yet). And the measurement is usually EROI, and looks to be as the parent said: https://ruayres.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rua-eroi-fig-5.png https://ruayres.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rua-eroi-fig-5.p... >I don't think those regions are comparatively safe. I'd say the parent doesn't talk about that safety, it's about in applications, transport, etc. Wars happened before oil too...
- cjslep 7y ago
  You took my interpretation of efficiency in a totally unexpected direction, which is cool and let me learn something new! However I don't buy EROEI as being a good measure in a discussion about long term climate change and the wholistic picture of an energy source. EROEI is too short-term focused (on energy break even) instead of looking at the lifetime of an energy source. Oil plants and internal combustion cars need to account for the years of shipping logistical distribution and mining/drilling when looking at the lifetime of an oil plant or the lifetime of the car. Compared to the marginal energy cost of maintenance of a PV cell or wind turbine over the lifetime of those power generating structures. The EROEI at the end of the energy production lifetime may favor energy-intensive short term sunk costs with low long term marginal costs (wind and sun) instead of favoring low-entry-incumbents with high energy operating costs (oil and it's existing logistical infrastructure). So I disagree it's "not controversial" and I also think looking at EROEI for the break even point is kind of like looking at bullet holes on planes without Abraham Wald around.
  - coldtea 7y ago

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

Cheap if you continue to escape paying carbon taxes. Gas should have a $2 tax to offset the carbon it puts in the air and a 2-10$ tax for the historically untaxed pollution. (per gallon). The production of oil for plastics and other materials is paltry compared to fuel. Of course that will continue. The point of this activism is to start the process of disincentivizing oil production, since governments are completely corrupted by oligarchy and economics for the rich and won't impose proper regulation. Your straw mans are "all oil production will cease immediately" (impossible) and "oil is the BEST POWER SOURCE" (it's not due to impending climate crises) The point of the article is that activism is actually having a potential effect on financing of oil extraction projects. Which is utterly shocking, I didn't think that was possible.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

If we decreased use by 90%, then it would still be used for 10%? And "big oil" would still be "big" then? It seems you are arguing at points nobody made.

coldtea 7y ago

>We know of no more efficient, safe, and easily convertible storage of energy than petrol hydrocarbons. So even if everyone else stopped today, someone will keep using them, and that group will have an advantage over their peers. Or, you know, that group gets thrown to prison or bombed, and problem solved, how about that? >Second, if we stop using oil in engines, guess what? It’ll go into lubes, and plastics, and other forms. We have a material we know no better alternative for. Plastics compared to oil energy is a tiny percentage (which, still has its own problems). But even if we had to do without both, and without modern conveniences, like plastics, and carbon fiber, and tons of others, and e.g. go back to a 1900 lifestyle, it still beats dying in a climate apocalypse (and returning to a 1900 B.C. lifestyle).

mrep 7y ago
> Or, you know, that group gets thrown to prison or bombed, and problem solved, how about that? Are you really arguing we go to war with every country who doesn't stop using fossil fuels? > beats dying in a climate apocalypse I'm 100% for paying more to switch to 100% renewable energy, but none of the effects of climate change [0] will in any way result in an apocalyptic future. [0]: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I'm 100% for paying more to switch to 100% renewable energy, but none of the effects of climate change [0] will in any way result in an apocalyptic future. The NASA effects are the Disney version. As many countries have already found (and many will discover) you can get an "apocalyptic future" with seemingly small changes. Changes pile up beyond the immediate ecological impact -- e.g. droughts and climate disasters mean more immigration, tension between neighborhooding countries, wars for resources (if wars of oil where bad, wait for wars for water), increased lack of global collaboration and so on...
  - mrep 7y ago
    > The NASA effects are the Disney version. As many countries have already found (and many will discover) you can get an "apocalyptic future" with seemingly small changes. What countries have experienced an "apocalyptic future" due to climate change seeing as you are smarter than NASA? > if wars of oil were bad, wait for wars for water How! I am flabbergasted you think the trillion dollar market for oil will be usurped by water. Pretty much all cities are based around water sources (rivers usually).