Is humanity even capable of evolving past oil?

[lagiacrux]

capable - yes
willing: not yet?

[Yadryonych]

Greta Thunberg is a moron. Millions would die if countries would decide to stop using fossil fuels. Not only electricity is more expensive and likely unaffordable for puprposes such as house warming, but the vast majority of vehicles run on oil.

You shouldn't really have brought greta into this, whoever demands that is a moron regardless his name.

[The Butt Witch]

You shouldn't really have brought greta into this, whoever demands that is a moron regardless his name.

But plenty of people believe that crap. People like Greta are morons indeed, but they are DANGEROUS morons once they get a platform.

[Mihalik]

But plenty of people believe that crap. People like Greta are morons indeed, but they are DANGEROUS morons once they get a platform.

You are still parroting nonsense.

[cubby]

Yes the water gets used up. You need the hydrogen from the water (Mars atmosphere has only tiny trace amounts of hydrogen in it, so you'd only really get hydrogen in water form), you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen and you use something called a Sabatier reaction for creating methane using up the hydrogen, you end up with something called SNG (substitute natural gas). It is an already existing industry here on Earth. SNG can be produced from biofuels in which case it's considered environmentally friendly, but most SNG production is still fossil fuel based here on Earth, tho on Mars you could just pull the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Oxygen is the byproduct, which would still be quite handy on Mars for breathing, agriculture, production of other chemicals.

Interesting - thanks for walking me through that.

I understood from previous reading that you can take ice and essentially turn it into rocket fuel, separating the oxygen and the hydrogen, and then turning the hydrogen into fuel (obviously more than just *poof* now it's fuel).

If the carbon dioxide also takes water (ice) to turn it into methane for fuel, and methane is a "new" fuel for rockets to use (not new, but new in the sense that we'd be switching to using at least on the return leg from Mars - this is info from SpaceX releases, so I could be wrong), why not skip the methane altogether and just make fuel from ice, if that's what we're going to need regardless?

[Rasulis]

omg...wishful fantasy..."things will get better.." for fuck's sake...They only get better for profiteering corporations.

- - - Updated - - -

Of interest; JPMorgan Chase to stop loans for fossil fuel drilling in the Arctic

JPMorgan Chase announced Monday that it is planning to end loans to companies pursuing fossil fuel drilling in the Arctic Circle, according to reports.

The Washington Post reported that the bank said that it will soon complete a 2017 commitment to help fund $200 billion in projects to help meet the U.N.'s sustainable development goals, as well as $50 billion for "green initiatives."

The bank also plans to phase out all existing and future loans to the coal industry by 2024, and end the financing of oil and gas extraction projects in the Arctic, a region vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

It is a cheap way to buy good publicity for JP Morgan. I read their annual report for 2018, and none of their coal and oil investments made money in the last 10 years. As reflected by the fact that oil and coal is the fastest shrinking stock market sector.

Here is something to put arctic oil drilling into perspective. Average cost of oil exploration is around 20M per boring for shale exploratory boring, 600M for offshore boring, upward of 1B for arctic drilling, and in 2015, before they abandoned the project, Shell spent 7B on a single offshore arctic exploratory boring. Key word “exploratory boring.” Did they find oil? No idea. Company secret and all that. Why did they abandon the project? Oil went down to $20 per barrel, and arctic oil need at least $120 per barrel to break even.

Even Russia and Norway have cut back on their arctic exploratory program a lot.

[Pony Soldier]

Of course we are. If we can send a robot to Mars I'm sure we can find a way to move on from oil.

The real question is does humanity care more about money or the well being of the planet and it's inhabitants? In other words would those billionaires be ok with finding another job? I think not. They make too much money to care about the environment. These old geezers live in their multi million dollar mansions and penthouses on their private islands and living the dream. What do they care? By the time anything serious happens they'll be long gone anyway.

It's just a business that brings in too much money and the government cares more about money than our well being so there's no way they're going to get rid of oil business in favor of a healthier environment. The only way I see us moving on from oil is if we completely deplete Earth of it or something and we're forced to move on to a different resource.

[Rasulis]

Of course we are. If we can send a robot to Mars I'm sure we can find a way to move on from oil.

The real question is does humanity care more about money or the well being of the planet and it's inhabitants? In other words would those billionaires be ok with finding another job? I think not. They make too much money to care about the environment. These old geezers live in their multi million dollar mansions and penthouses on their private islands and living the dream. What do they care? By the time anything serious happens they'll be long gone anyway.

It's just a business that brings in too much money and the government cares more about money than our well being so there's no way they're going to get rid of oil business in favor of a healthier environment. The only way I see us moving on from oil is if we completely deplete Earth of it or something and we're forced to move on to a different resource.

Fortunately, economic forces are against oil/gas/coal. People complained about green energy subsidy. What they do not realize, or choose to ignore, is the fact that oil received 10x more subsidy than green energy in the form of cheap leases, tax break, tax deferment, etc. Here is a breakdown of US government subsidies to oil companies for the fiscal period 2015 - 2016. Yes, somehow oil companies still managed to lose money and market share even with those generous government subsidies.

Tax expenditures subsidies, in which the federal government allows oil companies to deduct taxes during the oil-well development process. A prime example of this is the $2.3 billion Intangible Drilling Oil & Gas Deduction subsidy that allows producers to deduct 100 percent of expenses that aren’t directly linked to the final operation of an oil well. Another notable example in action is the Last-In, First Our Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies subsidy that allows oil companies to undervalue their inventory, reducing their amount of taxable income on the books and taking $1.5 billion out of federal coffers each year.

Direct spending subsidies, such as the $229 million Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy. Usually, the federal government taxes shipping company using waterways a fee proportionate to the tonnage of what they ship. Not so with oil companies. Similar to this is the $107 million Inadequate Administrative Fees for Onshore Drilling Management subsidy that leaves taxpayers holding the bag for Bureau of Land Management costs associated with drilling that would otherwise be covered by the industry.

Royalty relief subsidies, where oil companies carve out exemptions for themselves—usually with the help of lawmakers—to pay significantly lower royalties rates on the oil and gas they extract. For example, the Lost Royalties on Offshore Drilling for Leases Issued from 1996 through 2000 subsidy came as a result of the 1995 “Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act,” something that to this day deprives taxpayers of $1.1 billion each year.

Regulatory subsidies. These apply when oil companies are given leniency in fulfilling their regulatory commitments. The most prominent, recent example is the $334 million BP Deduction for Oil Spill Legal Settlement subsidy, where BP was permitted to deduct from its tax bill nearly all the damages they paid to the federal government as a result of the infamous Deepwater Horizon spill.

[Mihalik]

Fortunately, economic forces are against oil/gas/coal. People complained about green energy subsidy.

Yeah, no amount of data, fact or information will ever change some people's "opinion".

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Furthermore, nobody uses oil to generate electricity. Nobody. Using oil for generating electricity is akin to piling money on a big stacks and lighting it on fire to heat your home.

Electricity is commonly used for heating homes. Especially in the developed world.

Oil is still used for electricity generation in numerous countries, particularly oil rich countries and developing or insular countries without sufficient local energy sources.

As a percentage of total electricity generation it is a far cry from pre oil-shock times, but looking at per country data you'll find a good number that to this day are dependant on oil for a good chunk of their electricity needs, as even switching to gas is prohibitively expensive due to the cost of deliquefaction and/or critical market size.

Plus everywhere in the world power generators, be them for emergency or temporary use, run on oil.

While oil use has decreased in proportion for electricity generation, the thing is that natural gas use has skyrocketed instead, and coal is still a major component of many energy mixes. Fossils together still make over 60% of the world's electricity generation.

On the topic of heating, first not all countries need heating, and then yes it is commonly used in some developed countries, but usually in those that benefited from abundant cheap electricity, be it from massive hydro or nuclear capacity. In most of the world electricity is too expensive to be used for heat production, even for cooking purposes (gas being much more efficient).

[Shadowferal]

But plenty of people believe that crap. People like Greta are morons indeed, but they are DANGEROUS morons once they get a platform.

She's a youngling concerned about her future...and the sad fact that idiots are ruining the planet that she'll have to try to live in after those idiots before her up and die.

[Poe]

But plenty of people believe that crap. People like Greta are morons indeed, but they are DANGEROUS morons once they get a platform.

She's a CHILD with some form of autism but at least she's trying to make a difference.

What are you doing ?

[Othraerir]

not when money is the main motivator

[Rasulis]

not when money is the main motivator

That's the confusing part. Not a single oil & gas ETFs have made any money for their investors in the last 5 years. A reflection on the industry poor financial performance. SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP) is ranked as the best oil & gas ETF. As in it has lost the least amount of value when compared to other oil & gas ETFs. It was worth $58 per share in 2015 and now down to $17 per share. What idiots kept investing their money into these losers.

[PC2]

She's a youngling concerned about her future...and the sad fact that idiots are ruining the planet that she'll have to try to live in after those idiots before her up and die.

Actually the planet is becoming better and more hospitable for more people for future generations. The current future estimate is 9 billion people by 2100 where more people are being lifted out of poverty.



Perhaps you are projecting you're own personal failures onto the rest of the planet.

[Mihalik]

Perhaps you are projecting you're own personal failures onto the rest of the planet.

I'd like to point out the irony of your post.

One vital thing that you absolutely must avoid is reasoning about the future based on generalizing historical numbers. (See avatar and sig fallacy)

Trends could have been happening for thousands of years and it would have no effect whatsoever on how automation and technology will effect the jobs going into the future. Because no amount of automating past jobs means that future jobs will be automatable at the same rate. Whether or not automation of new jobs happens slower, the same, or faster, is 100% entirely independent of the historical trend. Not to mention that kind of historical data can't tell us anything at all about the entirely new jobs and industries that can be created in the next decade, the decade after that, and so on. Anybody who tells you that they know what the future of the job market looks like and what the future of work looks like is a charlatan.

The idea that this trend up improvement would hold is based on us literally not lighting our house on fire. Which we are doing right now.

Much of the Middle East is already on the verge of being uninhabitable (summer temperature spikes are edging towards the +125F for 3 to 6 months a year). Heat waves and droughts kill millions in places like India every summer. Water scarcity is becoming an existential threat in many areas that inhabited by literally billions of people. Many areas are on the verge of ecosystem collapse etc.

[PC2]

I'd like to point out the irony of your post.

The idea that this trend up improvement would hold is based on us literally not lighting our house on fire. Which we are doing right now.

I never said a trend will hold, good or bad, only that we have the capacity to solve problems that prevent negative trends as they relate to human metrics.

Much of the Middle East is already on the verge of being uninhabitable (summer temperature spikes are edging towards the +125F for 3 to 6 months a year). Heat waves and droughts kill millions in places like India every summer. Water scarcity is becoming an existential threat in many areas that inhabited by literally billions of people. Many areas are on the verge of ecosystem collapse etc.

What proof do you have to back up your claim that the Middle East is on the verge of being uninhabitable?

The Middle East has become more habitable to more people in the last 50 years(population went up) even though the avg temp has gone up by ~1 degree over the last 50 years. Similarly extreme poverty in MENA has been going down over the last ~25 years despite AGW increasing during the same period. If there was a causation-correlation relationship between these factors then we should have found that the population went down and extreme poverty went up over the last 25-50 years, which didn't happen. The reason for that is because people are constantly adapting, solving problems, and learning to improve their lives even in the face of environmental change.

Many areas are on the verge of ecosystem collapse etc.

That's prophecy and not a scientific claim. If it were scientific we would be able to test out your claim to verify that it's true and not just doomsaying. Ecosystems don't truly go anyways they simply get out-competed by generalist species and new niche species that are better adapted to the new conditions of a particular region.

Change is the only constant and it's a good thing in the sense that it forces us to innovate.

[Shadowferal]

I'd like to point out the irony of your post.

The idea that this trend up improvement would hold is based on us literally not lighting our house on fire. Which we are doing right now.

Much of the Middle East is already on the verge of being uninhabitable (summer temperature spikes are edging towards the +125F for 3 to 6 months a year). Heat waves and droughts kill millions in places like India every summer. Water scarcity is becoming an existential threat in many areas that inhabited by literally billions of people. Many areas are on the verge of ecosystem collapse etc.

Please...facts are useless on him...just don't feed him in his bubble.

Summer in the Mideast is the worst. I recall a few years ago when it hit 129F..ucking degrees.

[Mihalik]

Please...facts are useless on him...just don't feed him in his bubble.

Summer in the Mideast is the worst. I recall a few years ago when it hit 129F..ucking degrees.

Yeah, I was considering replying, but it's pretty clear he is arguing in bad faith.

Furthermore I remember once having a fairly long argument with him where he was literally arguing that natural ecosystems are unnecessary for human well being.