3 ms·

It's that IF that's the problem... We can solve a lot of the world's problems, not just this one, if we can find an energy source with the kind of lifetime EROE

It's that IF that's the problem... We can solve a lot of the world's problems, not just this one, if we can find an energy source with the kind of lifetime EROEI (energy return on energy investment) characteristics of petroleum based fuels. The non-trivial problem being we have yet to discover anything close to that. NPK inputs are energy intensive (check out Phosphorous mining). 95% of the world'a food supply is dependent on petrochemical based inputs of which we are starting to see a decline in availability. If you can show me ANY process to turn trees into pesticides as you suggest in any kind of energy efficient manner I'm open to revising my opinion, and would probably change careers to focus on that industry as I think it'd be a world changer. However I think you are very wide of the mark on the science in making such a suggestion.

ars 14y ago
Petroleum isn't magic. It's just mixed random hydrocarbons. Use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification to turn the tree into useful feedstock gases, then use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process to turn those gases into the exact same mixed hydrocarbons found in petroleum.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Please. You keep saying things like this but it's nonsense. Do some homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... I have been respectful of your comments in this thread so please don't see me as being overly harsh, but you are saying things that are nonsensical. We don't love hydrocarbons because of what they are but because the energy we get from them exceeds the energy necessary to produce them so they're a net source of energy, and not by a little - oil is something like 100:1 EROEI positive. Nothing comes close in terms of lifecycle EROEI.
  - ars 14y ago
    First you said that we need them to make pesticides, and replacing them would be impossible. So I showed you how to make pesticides without oil. And now they are for energy, and the pesticides doesn't actually matter. Talk about moving the goal posts. Look, of course oil is used for energy, no one disputes that. The method of making synthetic hydrocarbons is not as efficient as just finding it in the ground. But it is a net positive for energy, and in a world where it's hard to find oil it would work just fine - especially if all you needed was pesticides and other organic chemicals. If we run out of energy we are going to be in much bigger trouble than pesticides - but we won't run out of energy, because if we come close then public sentiment will shift and nuclear power will be OK again - and we have at least 10,000 years worth of that - at a minimum. This article is about population, and your claim (I think), is that we can't actually sustain as much population as we think because we're going to run out of oil AKA energy. Except you are wrong about that, just like you were wrong about "If you can show me ANY process to turn trees into pesticides" - which I did. We have many many options for energy besides oil, and we can sustain our population just fine.
    - richardjordan 14y ago
      Your didn't show anything of the sort. Your understanding of the underlying science is weak. Oil is a fundamental part of our food making process. Something that's 1x EROEI positive is not remotely analogous to oil at 100x. Oil is used throughout the entire process from pesticides to mechanical farming instruments to shipping. Any small change in pice, availability or EROEI of alternatives affect all elements of the chain. We currently add about 10 calories of oil per calorie of food produced. This is unsustainable. Oil production is at or near peak flow rates. This is widely understood by folks in the industry, of which I was once one. Oil's relationship to food and population is complex and multifaceted but it is absolutely tied to it at this point. This is a problem both in terms of oil as a feedstock and as an energy source. You cannot separate these out. I really am interested what this mythical new energy source is you have in mind. I suspect you understand properly neither the science behind nuclear nor solar which also have significant full life cycle EROEI issues and are dependent on other resource inputs. Further NPK inputs to agriculture are also incredibly energy intensive - go checkout some pictures of phosphorous mining to get an idea. The original point I was making was that the Green revolution and other solutions of the past bought us temporary respite. Exponential curves don't continue forever in the real world.

ars 14y ago

Petroleum isn't magic. It's just mixed random hydrocarbons. Use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification to turn the tree into useful feedstock gases, then use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process to turn those gases into the exact same mixed hydrocarbons found in petroleum.

richardjordan 14y ago
Please. You keep saying things like this but it's nonsense. Do some homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... I have been respectful of your comments in this thread so please don't see me as being overly harsh, but you are saying things that are nonsensical. We don't love hydrocarbons because of what they are but because the energy we get from them exceeds the energy necessary to produce them so they're a net source of energy, and not by a little - oil is something like 100:1 EROEI positive. Nothing comes close in terms of lifecycle EROEI.
- ars 14y ago
  First you said that we need them to make pesticides, and replacing them would be impossible. So I showed you how to make pesticides without oil. And now they are for energy, and the pesticides doesn't actually matter. Talk about moving the goal posts. Look, of course oil is used for energy, no one disputes that. The method of making synthetic hydrocarbons is not as efficient as just finding it in the ground. But it is a net positive for energy, and in a world where it's hard to find oil it would work just fine - especially if all you needed was pesticides and other organic chemicals. If we run out of energy we are going to be in much bigger trouble than pesticides - but we won't run out of energy, because if we come close then public sentiment will shift and nuclear power will be OK again - and we have at least 10,000 years worth of that - at a minimum. This article is about population, and your claim (I think), is that we can't actually sustain as much population as we think because we're going to run out of oil AKA energy. Except you are wrong about that, just like you were wrong about "If you can show me ANY process to turn trees into pesticides" - which I did. We have many many options for energy besides oil, and we can sustain our population just fine.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    Your didn't show anything of the sort. Your understanding of the underlying science is weak. Oil is a fundamental part of our food making process. Something that's 1x EROEI positive is not remotely analogous to oil at 100x. Oil is used throughout the entire process from pesticides to mechanical farming instruments to shipping. Any small change in pice, availability or EROEI of alternatives affect all elements of the chain. We currently add about 10 calories of oil per calorie of food produced. This is unsustainable. Oil production is at or near peak flow rates. This is widely understood by folks in the industry, of which I was once one. Oil's relationship to food and population is complex and multifaceted but it is absolutely tied to it at this point. This is a problem both in terms of oil as a feedstock and as an energy source. You cannot separate these out. I really am interested what this mythical new energy source is you have in mind. I suspect you understand properly neither the science behind nuclear nor solar which also have significant full life cycle EROEI issues and are dependent on other resource inputs. Further NPK inputs to agriculture are also incredibly energy intensive - go checkout some pictures of phosphorous mining to get an idea. The original point I was making was that the Green revolution and other solutions of the past bought us temporary respite. Exponential curves don't continue forever in the real world.