Conservation - in reverse



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Jeff S said:

    Yes, first time here.  My mistake, I didn't realize this was "humorous".  In retrospect, my sides are splitting, this is all very clever stuff!

    OK, back on topic.

     

    So we are supposed to not mind month old threads being resurrected, but you can't handle a little humor being thrown around?

    Humor is great.  But it has to be somewhat funny, and not derail the entire thread, not be intended only to annoy, and not be offensive (e.g., posting insults about people's mothers, calling them "retards", and so on)

    Sadly, none of that criteria is being met in this particular thread and many others I've seen around here lately.

    OK, enough -- I am guilty of de-railing this topic myself.   back to your scheduled programming and let's all try have a little respect for your fellow posters.

     



  • @cconroy said:

    Staten Island landfill

    Heh, I grew up one mile from there in Eltingville, back when it was just a big hole on the East side of Richmond Ave. I finally moved away when they closed the last dumping mound on the West shore. I remember the rivers-of-runoff, the flying trash landing across from the mall, and the swarms of seagulls.



  • @snoofle said:

    It used to be carboard boxes, then paper bags, now trashcan-sized plastic bags.
    Just further proof of the obesity epidemic sweeping the nation...



  • @Jeff S said:

    (e.g., posting insults about people's mothers, calling them "retards", and so on)
     

    Where has anyone insulted anyone's mother or called anyone a retard in this thread?

    Sounds like you are just making things up now...

    Just because you cannot find something funny, doesn't mean other people don't enjoy it. Since I don't see anyone else complaining, this sounds like your personal problem.

    @Jeff S said:

    OK, enough -- I am guilty of de-railing this topic myself.  

    More so than anyone else.

    @Jeff S said:

    let's all try have a little respect for your fellow posters.

    Indeed, stop moderating threads that are not in need of it.



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Jeff S said:

    (e.g., posting insults about people's mothers, calling them "retards", and so on)
     

    Where has anyone insulted anyone's mother or called anyone a retard in this thread?

    Sounds like you are just making things up now...

    Just because you cannot find something funny, doesn't mean other people don't enjoy it. Since I don't see anyone else complaining, this sounds like your personal problem.

    @Jeff S said:

    OK, enough -- I am guilty of de-railing this topic myself.  

    More so than anyone else.

    @Jeff S said:

    let's all try have a little respect for your fellow posters.

    Indeed, stop moderating threads that are not in need of it.

    The mother post was deleted.  And people are complaining.  End of discussion on this.  Thanks!



  •  @snoofle said:

    They don't give us anything. It's a big place with a pay-as-you-go corporate cafeteria. Most folks grab some food and bring it back to their desks. You have to carry it in something. It used to be carboard boxes, then paper bags, now trashcan-sized plastic bags. And I'm absolutely certain that they make a profit on the cost of the bags (included in the cost of the food).

     

    Oh... ok.. for a minute there I thought you worked at a shoe factory in Indonesia and got paid with food. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Plastic bags (being so thin) have different thermodynamics than thicker objects, so unless you recycle them separately from everything else, they start to burn up in the process of being melted down and cause impurities in the end product

    Who said anything about recycling?  I sure as hell don't recycle my plastic bags.

     

    @The Vicar said:

    Plastic bags are extremely likely to break free from waste containers because they are sheetlike and lightweight, meaning that even when properly disposed of they can end up as litter

    Really?  I haven't notice a large number of plastic bags compared to other types of litter.

     

     

    The environazis like to show pictures of people in third world countries absolutely BURIED in piles of plastic bags-- even choking off streams and the like.  Unless there is some special universal force we don't know about that causes all plastic bags in the world to congregate in countries with GDPs smaller than O. J. Simpson's monthly stipend, all those pictures prove is that third world countries have huge sanitation problems.  What news!



  • @operagost said:

    The environazis like to show pictures of people in third world countries absolutely BURIED in piles of plastic bags-- even choking off streams and the like.
    Oh, come on. Don't you remember those autumn days where you'd help your dad rake up all the fallen plastic bags into a pile, and maybe if you were really lucky, he'd let you jump in it?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Who said anything about recycling? I sure as hell don't recycle my plastic bags.

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Hell, you're required by law to do it here, but I just throw my garbage in with a few hundred other peoples' so nobody is going to be able to track it back to me.

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Meanwhile, landfills can be filled in and the land used for something else, but this tends to work better with the landfills that aren't full of toxic sludge created by biodegradable materials.

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Biodegrading is bad. And how long do you think bugs, worms and bacteria survive in a modern landfill? The toxins from decomposing non-plastic and non-glass materials tend to be pretty harsh.

    So let me get this straight. You don't separate your trash because plastic isn't harmful to landfills, but segregated landfills would be work better because the products of decomposition in mixed landfills kill off all the decomposer organisms. Are you admitting to purposefully contributing to the inefficiency of landfills because you like to be a dick or because you have only a superficial understanding of the processes going on in landfills. I think that you should answer your own question:
    @morbiuswilters said:

    How much do you actually know about ecology and waste management?

    If I may, I would like to paraphrase something you once said to me: "Thank God he's not out in the [waste management] workforce (yet)..."

    Finally, I'd like to point out that the plastic bags in the United States are different from those in other parts of the world. The bags that you're used to are thicker and easier to contain than most.



  • @DKNewsham said:

    So let me get this straight. You don't separate your trash because plastic isn't harmful to landfills, but segregated landfills would be work better because the products of decomposition in mixed landfills kill off all the decomposer organisms. Are you admitting to purposefully contributing to the inefficiency of landfills because you like to be a dick or because you have only a superficial understanding of the processes going on in landfills.

    What?  Plastic doesn't contribute anything to the problem is what I said.  It's biodegradable materials that cause the biggest problems in landfills.  Therefore I prefer non-biodegradable materials when given the choice.  I don't recycle (except valuable metals and actual toxins) but that really has nothing to do with landfills.  My argument was that plastic bags are better than paper bags and that the move away from plastic, glass and styrofoam and towards biodegradable containers was a bad one.

     

    @DKNewsham said:

    If I may, I would like to paraphrase something you once said to me: "Thank God he's not out in the [waste management] workforce (yet)..."

    Still bitter about your ignorance?  I don't plan on ever going into waste management, although I guess your failures in life have reduced you to taking a job as a garbageman, eh?

     

    @DKNewsham said:

    Finally, I'd like to point out that the plastic bags in the United States are different from those in other parts of the world. The bags that you're used to are thicker and easier to contain than most.

    This is because we are smarter, richer and sexier than everyone else, obviously.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    My argument was that plastic bags are better than paper bags and that the move away from plastic, glass and styrofoam and towards biodegradable containers was a bad one.

    so do you count paper as 'biodegradable container' or do you see an actual difference between paper and biodegradable plastic?

    where i live there is no uninhabited space you could use for landfills and the garbage is mostly burnt in waste utilization plants (the call it thermic recycling, maybe they are actually using the thermal energy for something, i don't know) and paper burns cleaner and better than plastic and humid waste, thus improving the 'recycling' process by making it possible to burn at the optimal temperature and saving effort for cleaning the exhaust gases.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It's never been anything I've noticed, so I guess you just live in a place with a bunch of jackasses. 

    Yup, I do live in a place with a bunch of jackasses - but that's not related to plastic bags. Whether here in Prague, the Gobi desert or (clean, green) New Zealand, getting rid of plastic bags (among other things) IS a problem. Maybe you live somewhere without a supermarket, maybe you just don't notice.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    How much land do you think landfills take up?  It's a very, very tiny amount.  Meanwhile, landfills can be filled in and the land used for something else, but this tends to work better with the landfills that aren't full of toxic sludge created by biodegradable materials.

    You're right - the land can sometimes be used for something else, sometime. Usually after a long time and a lot of money. Even if, as you suggest, oil is an unlimited resource, land isn't. Suitable land will run out - assuming we still want some to live and play on, untouched environments to enjoy, and maybe even a bird or animal or two.

    Oddly enough, there was a similar discussion today on /. (yeah, bash away). Someone pointed out this article which I found interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_Patch.

    In the scheme of things though, you're right. You using plastic bags, or snoofle's company using them, make all that much difference. The problem is when that becomes everyone using the plastic bags (personally, I go for reusable - a hell of a lot easier to carry home from the supermarket), leaving lights on overnight, having a 20-minute shower every day, or driving everywhere instead of walking/biking/catching a bus. They're all small things in themselves, but they do add up.

    I know your argument is that plastic bags are better for the environment and bio-degradable is bad, but I don't buy it. It just doesn't make sense. Once a plastic bag is made, something has to be done with it, and at the moment we don't have many good choices for plastic. But with paper we do have more choices - burn it, recycle, or even stick it in your own compost. And there is always reusable...

    snoofle, why don't you set an example, and take your own tray/box to work? :)



  • @bstorer said:

    Now that's low. We don't have to fear muggers stealing our ID so as to rob us at our home address later. Incidentally, does that even make sense? Are the robbers in Mexico City so indecisive that they cannot pick a house to rob without some outside help?

    First Robber: Hey, man. What house should we rob?
    Second Robber: I don't know, homes. I can't decide.
    First Robber (looking at ID from a recent mugging): It says here that there's some houses over on First Street, ese.
    Second Robber: Awesome! Good thing this strategy isn't common, because then the police would know exactly where we plan to strike.

    I'm sure you can add your own accents. Most people would go with something out of East LA, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Speedy Gonzales.

     

    I know this is petty, but this particular misuse of words irritates me, and you were pretty rough on someone earlier for their grammar.  But you do not rob houses.  You rob people.   A person entering a house to take things from it would be a burglar, and they would be burglarizing the house.



  • @tster said:

    I know this is petty, but this particular misuse of words irritates me, and you were pretty rough on someone earlier for their grammar.  But you do not rob houses.  You rob people.   A person entering a house to take things from it would be a burglar, and they would be burglarizing the house.

    You're right (although Merriam-Webster includes as a definition of rob: "to remove valuables without right from (a place)", but I think that's mostly about robbing 7-11s). The key difference is that robbery requires the use or threat of force. Thanks for pointing it out; I should know better.



  • @snoofle said:

    They don't give us anything. It's a big place with a pay-as-you-go corporate cafeteria. Most folks grab some food and bring it back to their desks. You have to carry it in something. It used to be carboard boxes, then paper bags, now trashcan-sized plastic bags. And I'm absolutely certain that they make a profit on the cost of the bags (included in the cost of the food).

     

     

    They almost certainly do make a profit.That's pretty much the main goal of any business. 



  • @Mel said:

    You're right - the land can *sometimes* be used for something else, *sometime*. Usually after a long time and a lot of money
     

    You're talking out your ass.  The city I live in is neither rich, nor am I a century old.  When I was born, we had a landfill.  That landfill was closed, and now, 30 years later, we have homes beside it.  The landfill has been covered with grass, and a natural gas recovery facility placed beside it.  The landfill not only doesn't smell, or cause any problems whatsoever, it provides heat for homes here, and provides a lovely park and great sledding experience for children.  Nobody would know it is a landfill without having been told about it.  I wouldn't be surprised if with the sale of the land for houses and the natural gas production facility, the city has, in fact, turned a profit from it.

     Please! Everyone here who thinks landfills are poisonous and will cover the earth, watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on the topic.  Please!  Just do it!  ALL the landfill in the US from the past CENTURY would cover no more area than one reasonably large city.  Put that crap up north, where NOBODY lives, and you can create JOBS, you can stop worrying about pollution (just keep the polar bears out), and the best part?  In a few decades, when oil is ridiculously expensive, and other materials are hard to find, you can create a mining operation to recover the material for even more profit.

     To really make this sound good, don't forget that recycling many materials, right now, actually produces more pollution (from the energy sources and water required) than just processing the raw materials.  In the future, this will get better.  We should keep that stuff in a landfill so it can be mined later and recycled using lower pollution processes, *and* we can actually find a way to make recycling MAKE money, rather than having it drain my taxes to help destroy the environment so some feel-goodies can, well, feel good.

     Read the book "Stuff white people like".  It has a great description on how stupid these bullshit "non-plastic" plastic bags are.  Because nobody will be carrying their groceries back home in paper bags when plastic bags are banned.  They'll be using expensive hippie bags that get lost all the time, need replacing a lot, and end up using more resources because of how much plastic they use!  ARGH!

    BTW:  I live beside a city that forces garbage separation.  Several people I've spoken with agree:  People just don't want to buy a house there because it's too much hassle.  Renting is okay, as apartments don't "partitipate".  Oh, and because the city doesn't want to put tax money into the recylcing half of the equation, for the past few years since the recycling companies decided to give up on trying to make money, the trash gets recombined.  AT THE CITY DUMP.  :-D



  • @Mel said:

    In the scheme of things though, you're right. You using plastic bags, or snoofle's company using them, make all that much difference. The problem is when that becomes everyone using the plastic bags (personally, I go for reusable - a hell of a lot easier to carry home from the supermarket), leaving lights on overnight, having a 20-minute shower every day, or driving everywhere instead of walking/biking/catching a bus. They're all small things in themselves, but they do add up.

    I know your argument is that plastic bags are better for the environment and bio-degradable is bad, but I don't buy it. It just doesn't make sense. Once a plastic bag is made, something has to be done with it, and at the moment we don't have many good choices for plastic. But with paper we do have more choices - burn it, recycle, or even stick it in your own compost. And there is always reusable...

    snoofle, why don't you set an example, and take your own tray/box to work? :)

    <deleted by mod> Recycling paper or burning it is worse for the environment than throwing it away, which I already pointed out was worse than throwing away plastic.  You really think that putting an extremely stable polymer in the ground is somehow worse than burning wood products?  Finally, when it comes to reusable, who really gives a shit?  At the end of the day, everyone on Earth could use canvas bags instead of plastic or paper and the results would be unnoticable. 



  • @The Vicar said:

    Actually, they've discovered that plastic bags (and similar things made from plastic, such as those thin transparent wrappers on practically everything in a modern grocery store) are dramatically worse for the environment than paper bags are, and are also dramatically worse than other recyclable plastic objects. I'll go look for the article where I read this -- it was published less than a year ago, but I can't remember where

    Found the article, for those few remaining who aren't using this board as a way to pretend they're sixth graders: Plastic Bags are Killing Us.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Still bitter about your ignorance? I guess your failures in life have reduced you to taking a job as a garbageman, eh?

    I tried really hard to think of a thoughtful and informative response, but I was just too ignorant. You, sir, have won at the internet. Bravo.

    (Yes, I'm being a twat, but you're still a dick for looking down on garbage men.)



  • @snoofle said:

    @cconroy said:
    Staten Island landfill
    Heh, I grew up one mile from there in Eltingville, back when it was just a big hole on the East side of Richmond Ave. I finally moved away when they closed the last dumping mound on the West shore. I remember the rivers-of-runoff, the flying trash landing across from the mall, and the swarms of seagulls.
     

     

    That was the last straw, was it?


     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @snoofle said:

    On one side, as a general rule, most plastic is made from the byproducts of refining oil, which in most cases, is not a renewable resource.

    The Sun isn't a renewable resource either, but it's still vast enough for me to not worry about running out.

    I think the fact that he attempted to equate over five billion years of solar power to fifty years of oil should discredit everything he ever says, ever. One is called "renewable" because your grandchildren will enjoy it and it's lifespan is eight orders of magnitude greater than something comparatively "non-renewable."

    Another thing: on one hand you say waste that degrades fast is bad for the surrounding area, and on the other you claim landfills don't occupy much area. Given their small area, does it really matter if the soil in the immediate vascinity is toxic?



  • @Arctic_Panda said:

    I think the fact that he attempted to equate over five billion years of solar power to fifty years of oil should discredit everything he ever says, ever.

    I don't know where you got 50 years from, because that's more pessimistic than any report I've ever read. Perhaps you meant 50 years of near-peak production?

    Like it or not, morbiuswilters is essentially correct: estimates put the amount of oil pumped out ever at between 10 and 12.5 percent of oil in the ground. The question is more whether we can actually get to all the remaining oil. Morbius says yes because the need for it will result in the technology necessary to get at it, you say no, presumably because you're an alarmist, and I say meh because I expect we'll reduce our dependence on oil in the next few decades.



  • [quote user=""]@snoofle said:

    They don't give us anything...

    They almost certainly do make a profit.That's pretty much the main goal of any [i]business[/i].
    [/quote]

    Business? Yes! But this is a company sponsored in-house cafeteria, whose sole purpose is to keep you in the building and get you back to your desk quicker than if you went out for food and sat in a restaurant. It's company subsidized. It's not supposed to make money.



  • @snoofle said:

    But this is a company sponsored in-house cafeteria, whose sole purpose is to keep you in the building and get you back to your desk quicker than if you went out for food and sat in a restaurant. It's company subsidized. It's not supposed to make money.
    So do you not have to pay for it, or are the prices just kept low thanks to the company footing part of the bill?



  • @The Vicar said:

    Found the article, for those few remaining who aren't using this board as a way to pretend they're sixth graders: Plastic Bags are Killing Us.

    Oh boy, Salon!  That's an unbiased source! 



  • @Arctic_Panda said:

    I think the fact that he attempted to equate over five billion years of solar power to fifty years of oil should discredit everything he ever says, ever. One is called "renewable" because your grandchildren will enjoy it and it's lifespan is eight orders of magnitude greater than something comparatively "non-renewable."

    My point is that all resources run out eventually, except for human ingenuity.  You also seem damn convinced that we will never find a way to manufacture synthetic petroleum.

     

    @Arctic_Panda said:

    Another thing: on one hand you say waste that degrades fast is bad for the surrounding area, and on the other you claim landfills don't occupy much area. Given their small area, does it really matter if the soil in the immediate vascinity is toxic?

    Yes, because the toxins leech out into the groundwater.  It should be obvious that if you have a choice between a toxic landfill or a non-toxic landfill that you would choose the latter.  I don't hate the environment, I want to take the steps necessary to keep the place liveable and nice looking while still maximizing the exploitation of resources.  However, I don't buy into the bullshit that the modern environmentalist movement has crammed down our throats, like that recycling is good, plastic and styrofoam are bad and cars are a sin. 



  • @snoofle said:

    Business? Yes! But this is a company sponsored in-house cafeteria, whose sole purpose is to keep you in the building and get you back to your desk quicker than if you went out for food and sat in a restaurant. It's company subsidized. It's not supposed to make money.
     

    Umm....yes, it *is* supposed to make money. It's company subsidized. That means it isn't run by your company - instead, your company pays another company to come in and provide a service.

    Your meals may be cheaper because your employer pays the catering company, but the catering company has the same motives as the company you work for. They exist to make money, and they'll do whatever they can to increase their profits. 



  • @bstorer said:

    @snoofle said:
    But this is a company sponsored in-house cafeteria, whose sole purpose is to keep you in the building and get you back to your desk quicker than if you went out for food and sat in a restaurant. It's company subsidized. It's not supposed to make money.
    So do you not have to pay for it, or are the prices just kept low thanks to the company footing part of the bill?

    Actually, in this particular case, the company hires this restaurant service to provide food for a flat fee, and then charges us prices below what we'd pay on the street.

    Again, the idea is to get us back to our desks rather than having us go out and take time for lunch. Recent changes have alienated so many folks (cafeteria cost > street cost; cafeteria quality < street quality) that most of us just go out for food.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Plastic is a hell of a lot better for the environment than paper is.  Also, why do you think the impact of plastic is that significant?  How much do you actually know about ecology and waste management? 

     

    I hate to be "that guy" but I'm going to be anyway....

    <rant>

    Um plastic is not better than paper for the environment: it is non-renewable and petroleum based, does not bio-degrade, can not be made carbon neutral, and interferes with wildlife when disposed of. None of these apply to paper products to the degree that they do to plastic, a fact that can be backed up by science and data, not some public relations press release from Dow Chemical or Multi-Mega-Corp International.

    oh yeah and btw. I have a bachelor in environmental science and worked as a soil scientist for many years so I do know a thing or two about ecology and waste management that I picked up from a source other than talk radio.

    </rant>



  • As much as I hate to continue this 'discussion' with you: 

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Yes, because the toxins leech out into the groundwater.  It should be obvious that if you have a choice between a toxic landfill or a non-toxic landfill that you would choose the latter.  I don't hate the environment, I want to take the steps necessary to keep the place liveable and nice looking while still maximizing the exploitation of resources.  However, I don't buy into the bullshit that the modern environmentalist movement has crammed down our throats, like that recycling is good, plastic and styrofoam are bad and cars are a sin. 

     

    I want to get this straight.  In your ideal world, everyone would use plastic bags and other non-biodegradeable options where available.  These things go into a landfill.  Biodegradeable things (paper, food waste etc) would be disposed of seperately.  Is that correct?

    You are willing to take the steps necessary to bring the world closer to your ideal.  Do you separate your biodegradeble rubbish from the non-biodegradeable, for instance composting your food waste?  Or does your own rubbish contribute to what you see as a problem?



  • @dkackman said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Plastic is a hell of a lot better for the environment than paper is.  Also, why do you think the impact of plastic is that significant?  How much do you actually know about ecology and waste management? 

     

    I hate to be "that guy" but I'm going to be anyway....

    <rant>

    Um plastic is not better than paper for the environment: it is non-renewable and petroleum based, does not bio-degrade, can not be made carbon neutral, and interferes with wildlife when disposed of. None of these apply to paper products to the degree that they do to plastic, a fact that can be backed up by science and data, not some public relations press release from Dow Chemical or Multi-Mega-Corp International.

    oh yeah and btw. I have a bachelor in environmental science and worked as a soil scientist for many years so I do know a thing or two about ecology and waste management that I picked up from a source other than talk radio.

    </rant>

    Good job on not reading anything I've said since this post and not responding to a single one of my arguments.  I guess that was part of your schooling as well. 



  • @Mel said:

    I want to get this straight.  In your ideal world, everyone would use plastic bags and other non-biodegradeable options where available.  These things go into a landfill.  Biodegradeable things (paper, food waste etc) would be disposed of seperately.  Is that correct?

     

    Not really, I would just dispose of them together.  However, by increasing the ratio of non-biodegradable to biodegradable materials I would be reducing the toxicity of the landfill.  Thus I throw away everything except for valuable metals or toxic materials.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Arctic_Panda said:
    I think the fact that he attempted to equate over five billion years of solar power to fifty years of oil should discredit everything he ever says, ever.

    I don't know where you got 50 years from, because that's more pessimistic than any report I've ever read. Perhaps you meant 50 years of near-peak production?

    Like it or not, morbiuswilters is essentially correct: estimates put the amount of oil pumped out ever at between 10 and 12.5 percent of oil in the ground. The question is more whether we can actually get to all the remaining oil. Morbius says yes because the need for it will result in the technology necessary to get at it, you say no, presumably because you're an alarmist, and I say meh because I expect we'll reduce our dependence on oil in the next few decades.

     

    I don't know where you got 10%-12.5%; I'm pretty sure it's 50%. It's difficult to predict, since we know there's some undiscovered oil. But every time you hear of a major oil discovery on the news, it usually amounts to two-years worth in the U.S. max.

    World demand for oil rises continuously at 1.76% per year. The doubling time for this growth is ln(2)/(1.76% per year) = 39.4 years. This tells us that in 40 years, we'll need to extract oil at double the current rate, and also that in 40 years we will consume as much oil as has ever been since its discovery. If we've consumed half of it already, we'll exhaust the Earth's entire supply of petroleum by 2050. If we've actually consumed 12.5% we run out in 2130 using the same math above; with 10%, 2143. So much for that "We have 200 years of the stuff!" crap. 

    That model's wrong, because while demand follows an exponential pattern, supply follows a bell curve. In actuality, we should experience excruciating hikes in oil prices when supply growth begins to decelerate for the obvious reason that supply is no longer keeping up with demand. The prices will make our lives suck, extend the supply's lifespan a few decades, and decrease it's cost-effective usable lifespan several more decades. Hey, this sounds eerily familiar.

    Regardless of whether we're running out, we still need to extract it twice as fast in 40 years, quadruple speed in 80, and so on. If, that is, the demand in India and China grows steadily and doesn't accelerate.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Arctic_Panda said:

    I think the fact that he attempted to equate over five billion years of solar power to fifty years of oil should discredit everything he ever says, ever. One is called "renewable" because your grandchildren will enjoy it and it's lifespan is eight orders of magnitude greater than something comparatively "non-renewable."

    My point is that all resources run out eventually, except for human ingenuity.  You also seem damn convinced that we will never find a way to manufacture synthetic petroleum.

    I don't know much about synthetic oil, except that we know how to make it (I don't need to be confident that they "will find a way"; they have) and synthesising it requires energy. You'll have to tell me more of what you know about it before I can draw any conclusions.



  • @Arctic_Panda said:

    I don't know where you got 10%-12.5%; I'm pretty sure it's 50%. It's difficult to predict, since we know there's some undiscovered oil. But every time you hear of a major oil discovery on the news, it usually amounts to two-years worth in the U.S. max.

    The fact is, we really have very little clue how much oil there is in the ground.  We also have no idea what future technologies will allow us to synthesize oil without the need of drilling.  Trying to predict what the state of physics and chemistry will be in 30 years is pretty much impossible.

     

    @Arctic_Panda said:

    World demand for oil rises continuously at 1.76% per year. The doubling time for this growth is ln(2)/(1.76% per year) = 39.4 years. This tells us that in 40 years, we'll need to extract oil at double the current rate, and also that in 40 years we will consume as much oil as has ever been since its discovery. If we've consumed half of it already, we'll exhaust the Earth's entire supply of petroleum by 2050. If we've actually consumed 12.5% we run out in 2130 using the same math above; with 10%, 2143. So much for that "We have 200 years of the stuff!" crap. 

    Demand grows because of developing economies and lack of concern for efficiency.  If supply starts bumping up against demand we will see an increase in efficiency.  As developing countries become developed, their consumption will drop dramatically.  It would also help if we'd stop burning the goddamn stuff to light our houses and instead use nuclear power for electrical generation.  That would extend the supply of oil even further.

     

    @Arctic_Panda said:

    That model's wrong, because while demand follows an exponential pattern, supply follows a bell curve. In actuality, we should experience excruciating hikes in oil prices when supply growth begins to decelerate for the obvious reason that supply is no longer keeping up with demand. The prices will make our lives suck, extend the supply's lifespan a few decades, and decrease it's cost-effective usable lifespan several more decades. Hey, this sounds eerily familiar.

    Wrong.  Demand follows a bell curve as well.  As supply becomes more scarce people shift to other forms of energy.  The demand will not keep growing expontentially simply because it cannot: there is no supply to allow it.  Your statement is as idiotic as saying "The grow of the tree is exponential but the supply of nutrients and rain follows a bell curve".  Demand adjusts to supply: lern2economics, n00b.  Meanwhile, the problem with prices now has more to do with the way supply is managed and not with the actual supply itself.  There's a hell of a lot of oil out there and probably tons we can't even imagine.  Also, our ability to extract oil from alternate sources continues to grow, as does the knowledge necessary to efficiently synthesize gasoline and diesel.

     

    @Arctic_Panda said:

    Regardless of whether we're running out, we still need to extract it twice as fast in 40 years, quadruple speed in 80, and so on. If, that is, the demand in India and China grows steadily and doesn't accelerate.

    Once again, demand will follow supply.  What you are arguing is essentially nonsensical.  Either the supply will be there for the demand or the demand will slowly shift elsewhere.  It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatives to petroleum that become more efficient and feasible every year.  The thing is, petroleum is just so goddamn wonderful.  Gasoline is a ridiculously potent energy storage mechanism and its portability and near-ubiquitous use makes it extremely attractive.  Things will change over time, but I wouldn't be shocked if synthetic fuels eventually take over, at least until battery technology gets to the point where it is as mature as the internal combustion engine.  People who worry about this kind of thing are just knee-jerk alarmists.  People have been predicting ruin since civilization began and they have been wrong every time.  One hundred years ago the fear was running out of whale oil.  Today nobody even uses the shit.  If you honestly believe that we won't continue to have sufficient supplies of petroleum and other energy sources in 100 years, you are betting on the wrong damn team.



  • @Arctic_Panda said:

    I don't know much about synthetic oil, except that we know how to make it (I don't need to be confident that they "will find a way"; they have) and synthesising it requires energy. You'll have to tell me more of what you know about it before I can draw any conclusions.

    Well, the problem is that current synthetic oil technologies are not particularly efficient.  Additionally, it requires energy which is sort of silly given the fact that oil is currently a major source of energy.  As nuclear, solar and fusion power gain traction and mature there will probably come a day when energy generated through these means is so cheap that synthesizing oil becomes profitable.  At that point, who cares how much oil is left in the ground? 



  • Okay, so I'm just trying to post some pointless comment without reading any of the previous posted comments. Did I already reach the level of morbiuswilters or do I have to put much more effort in not reading the thread and posting silly comments with "a smattering of everything, and a knowledge of nothing" (Charles Dickens)? Thank you very much!



  • @adrianX said:

    Did I already reach the level of morbiuswilters...

    If you truly reached my level your skull would literally blow apart with knowledge and your pants would rip apart with penis.

     

    Seriously, what in the hell are you talking about?  I've replied to every single incorrect statement I've seen.  Point-by-tedious-point.  Instead of bothering with reasoning you've just decided to attack me personally and forgo any useful contribution to the world.  I know this is your usual lot in life, but I would appreciate it if you showed some goddamn respect to this forum and either explain yourself or keep your worthless mouth shut.



  • @shepd said:

    @Mel said:

    You're right - the land can *sometimes* be used for something else, *sometime*. Usually after a long time and a lot of money
     

    You're talking out your ass.  The city I live in is neither rich, nor am I a century old.  When I was born, we had a landfill.  That landfill was closed, and now, 30 years later, we have homes beside it.  The landfill has been covered with grass, and a natural gas recovery facility placed beside it.  The landfill not only doesn't smell, or cause any problems whatsoever, it provides heat for homes here, and provides a lovely park and great sledding experience for children.  Nobody would know it is a landfill without having been told about it.  I wouldn't be surprised if with the sale of the land for houses and the natural gas production facility, the city has, in fact, turned a profit from it.

    Check out Mexico City's Santa Fe CBD. 20 years ago, the area was one of the biggest landfills in the city. Sometime after closing the landfill, a major renovation project began over there, and its now a high-class business district, and has one of the most expensive housing projects in the city. I doubt high-class people would like to go there if it were hazardous, so it seems like the project did work after all.


  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Arctic_Panda said:

    I don't know where you got 10%-12.5%; I'm pretty sure it's 50%. It's difficult to predict, since we know there's some undiscovered oil. But every time you hear of a major oil discovery on the news, it usually amounts to two-years worth in the U.S. max.

    The fact is, we really have very little clue how much oil there is in the ground.  We also have no idea what future technologies will allow us to synthesize oil without the need of drilling.  Trying to predict what the state of physics and chemistry will be in 30 years is pretty much impossible.

    Only half-true. We know we're running out because it's harder and harder to find new sources. Since discoveries have been on the decline, we can predict the total we should find.

    If we're uncertain about this figure as you say we are, then it's equally possible we've exhausted 90% of all supplies, which means we're really screwed.@morbiuswilters said:

    @Arctic_Panda said:

    That model's wrong, because while demand follows an exponential pattern, supply follows a bell curve. In actuality, we should experience excruciating hikes in oil prices when supply growth begins to decelerate for the obvious reason that supply is no longer keeping up with demand. The prices will make our lives suck, extend the supply's lifespan a few decades, and decrease it's cost-effective usable lifespan several more decades. Hey, this sounds eerily familiar.

    Wrong.  Demand follows a bell curve as well.  As supply becomes more scarce people shift to other forms of energy.  The demand will not keep growing expontentially simply because it cannot: there is no supply to allow it.  Your statement is as idiotic as saying "The grow of the tree is exponential but the supply of nutrients and rain follows a bell curve".  Demand adjusts to supply: lern2economics, n00b.  Meanwhile, the problem with prices now has more to do with the way supply is managed and not with the actual supply itself.  There's a hell of a lot of oil out there and probably tons we can't even imagine.  Also, our ability to extract oil from alternate sources continues to grow, as does the knowledge necessary to efficiently synthesize gasoline and diesel.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    [quote user="Arctic_Panda"]Regardless of whether we're running out, we still need to extract it twice as fast in 40 years, quadruple speed in 80, and so on. If, that is, the demand in India and China grows steadily and doesn't accelerate.

    Once again, demand will follow supply.  What you are arguing is essentially nonsensical.  Either the supply will be there for the demand or the demand will slowly shift elsewhere.  It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatives to petroleum that become more efficient and feasible every year.  The thing is, petroleum is just so goddamn wonderful.  Gasoline is a ridiculously potent energy storage mechanism and its portability and near-ubiquitous use makes it extremely attractive.  Things will change over time, but I wouldn't be shocked if synthetic fuels eventually take over, at least until battery technology gets to the point where it is as mature as the internal combustion engine.  People who worry about this kind of thing are just knee-jerk alarmists.  People have been predicting ruin since civilization began and they have been wrong every time.  One hundred years ago the fear was running out of whale oil.  Today nobody even uses the shit.  If you honestly believe that we won't continue to have sufficient supplies of petroleum and other energy sources in 100 years, you are betting on the wrong damn team.

    [/quote]

    lern2economics? Now you're resorting to personal insults on my intelligence rather than forming actual arguments. You're a God damn troll hoping to turn what would be a losing debate into a heated argument.

    lern2read you arrogant condescending fool. You're only wasting space gloating your supposed superior intellect rather than adding to the debate. What you managed to spend an entire paragraph articulating was easily compressed into three words: "That model's wrong." I then explained what would really happen. All of the numbers I computed were based on the idea that we'd always need petroleum, and the point was that we'd need to find a different energy source because keeping up with the numbers is impossible. To that end I was agreeing with you, yet you still managed to hack together a couple of sentences to form what you believed was a witty rebuttal that only a person of your intellect could articulate. To that end I'm also agreeing with you, because you were the only person here dumb enough to effectively shout "I'm both arrogant and mentally impaired" to anyone following this thread.

    You don't need a major in economics to understand the problem here, just a basic understanding of supply and demand and a grasp on basic mathematics. Everyone else understood what I was saying. You're the only one who felt special enough to write two full paragraphs proving you understood it.

    My point was not that we're all going to fall under nuclear holocaust and the Sun will swallow the Earth because we run out of petroleum. If you read carefully you'll see I never reference any major calamities. The point was that, even with bstorer's generous predictions, we can't just sit around and do nothing 'cept let oil solve all our problems. Okay? Now take your Aristotle greater-than-thou mentality to someone you actually disagree with.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @adrianX said:

    Did I already reach the level of morbiuswilters...

    If you truly reached my level your skull would literally blow apart with knowledge and your pants would rip apart with penis.

     

    Seriously, what in the hell are you talking about?  I've replied to every single incorrect statement I've seen.  Point-by-tedious-point.  Instead of bothering with reasoning you've just decided to attack me personally and forgo any useful contribution to the world.  I know this is your usual lot in life, but I would appreciate it if you showed some goddamn respect to this forum and either explain yourself or keep your worthless mouth shut.

    Okay, so, I'm very sorry, but after reading in this forum - uhm, I think now it's 24 hours since my registration - I think that you're posting pointless crap in about every thread, attacking the posters by repeating the fact they don't know a shit and proving the fact that there are many things you don't know.

    One thing is that you think that synthetic petroleum will fix all our energy problems but - whoops! Also SYNTHETIC petroleum needs energy in production. Okay, so let's take that energy from nuclear power plants but - whoops, that's a limited resource too. And the fact that you ignore all side-effects caused by the massive consumption of petroleum - yes, that's the point where all this silly global-warming stuff comes up. I know, we could use solar cells or wind turbines but at the moment these cool things have to produce energy for 5-10 years to amortize their costs. And if there is no wind? Yes, that's the moment when the coal-fired power plant has to kick in and produce energy.

    So I think that you could sum up that in fact there is a problem of energy production and consumption which will grow until also people like you'll have to think about it and have to reconsider your point of view instead of reiterate that there will be some magic stuff solving all of our problems.

    Yes, I know, I repeated myself and the post is crap, but this is all you'll get...



  • @adrianX said:

    Okay, so, I'm very sorry, but after reading in this forum - uhm, I think now it's 24 hours since my registration - I think that you're posting pointless crap in about every thread, attacking the posters by repeating the fact they don't know a shit and proving the fact that there are many things you don't know.

    Then obviously you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

    Morbius is very good at only targeting ignorant assholes who run their ignorant mouths.


  • :belt_onion:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    We also have no idea what future technologies will allow us to synthesize oil without the need of drilling.  Trying to predict what the state of physics and chemistry will be in 30 years is pretty much impossible.
     

    The laws of thermodynamics will still be the same. If you want to create a fuel that can deliver a certain amount of joules, you will need to invest a lot more energy in the production process. Instead of using wind energy to power a "synthetic oil" plant, I advise everybode to put a sail on the roof of your car



  • @Arctic_Panda said:

    I don't know where you got 10%-12.5%; I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
    World oil reserves are currently listed at roughly 1.2 trillion barrels, compared with the 1 trillion or so barrels we've used. This is where you're getting a figure of 50%. But oil reserves are estimated based upon a 90% certainty of extracting that oil given current methods and technology. If you don't think technology will improve and make possible the extraction of oil previously thought unreachable, then you're probably the sort of person claiming each year that Moore's Law can't possibly hold any longer.
    @Arctic_Panda said:
    World demand for oil rises continuously at 1.76% per year. The doubling time for this growth is ln(2)/(1.76% per year) = 39.4 years.
    No real arguments here.
    @Arctic_Panda said:
    This tells us that in 40 years, we'll need to extract oil at double the current rate, and also that in 40 years we will consume as much oil as has ever been since its discovery.
    Yes and no. You're right that in 40 years, we'd need double the production. But we won't be consuming all the oil ever discovered in the next 40 years, but all the oil deemed recoverable based upon current technology. It's a small point, but it bears repeating.
    @Arctic_Panda said:
    That model's wrong, because while demand follows an exponential pattern, supply follows a bell curve. In actuality, we should experience excruciating hikes in oil prices when supply growth begins to decelerate for the obvious reason that supply is no longer keeping up with demand. The prices will make our lives suck, extend the supply's lifespan a few decades, and decrease it's cost-effective usable lifespan several more decades. Hey, this sounds eerily familiar.
    I'm not arguing that we need to reduce our dependence upon oil; exponential growth is not to be fucked with.



  • @adrianX said:

    One thing is that you think that synthetic petroleum will fix all our energy problems but - whoops! Also SYNTHETIC petroleum needs energy in production. Okay, so let's take that energy from nuclear power plants but - whoops, that's a limited resource too.

    Every resource is a limited resource in that it'll eventually run out. Hell, solar power will come to an end one day -- whoops! The key is to discuss in terms of how long they can last. Nuclear energy, for example, is predicted to last us hundreds to thousands of years.



  • @bjolling said:

    I advise everybode to put a sail on the roof of your car
    Oh, great, and use up all the wind...



  • @bstorer said:

    @bjolling said:
    I advise everybode to put a sail on the roof of your car
    Oh, great, and use up all the wind...
     

    Won't someone think of the solar bears? How will they para sail!

    Oh the humanity!



  • In my experience, most organization-wide attempts to use less paper have been pretty futile.  The university where I work has perpetually been on a "Green Policy" of decreased paper use.  The first thing they did was to do away with paper applications.  Digitizing the admissions process was actually a pretty neat idea, and the advantages are numerous.  But seeing how all the admissions officers still print out all the applications before reading them, conservation was obviously not one of those advantages.

    This summer the paperless office movement was rejuvenated.  This time, the idea is to decrease printing by decreasing the number of printers available in faculty and administrative offices, the theory being that having to walk an additional 30 seconds to get to a printer will act as a sufficient deterrent.   Just yesterday I attended a meeting where I received a 45 page booklet outlining the details of this revolutionary new initiative. 



  • @aips said:

    In my experience, most organization-wide attempts to use less paper have been pretty futile.  The university where I work has perpetually been on a "Green Policy" of decreased paper use.  The first thing they did was to do away with paper applications.  Digitizing the admissions process was actually a pretty neat idea, and the advantages are numerous.  But seeing how all the admissions officers still print out all the applications before reading them, conservation was obviously not one of those advantages.

    This summer the paperless office movement was rejuvenated.  This time, the idea is to decrease printing by decreasing the number of printers available in faculty and administrative offices, the theory being that having to walk an additional 30 seconds to get to a printer will act as a sufficient deterrent.   Just yesterday I attended a meeting where I received a 45 page booklet outlining the details of this revolutionary new initiative. 
    Sometimes it works, though. Most of the enrollment process has gone paperless at the university where I graduated, the process didn't just include forms, though: by the time I was about to graduate, about 80% of all assignments were delivered in electronic format. We used to have LearningSpace since 1998, then they switched to Blackboard (2001?) and another homebrewed platform around 2004.

    The teachers were happy with this, as it also allowed to keep track of when the student sent his assignment, and they could check the assignments from home.



  • @tster said:

    @bstorer said:

    Now that's low. We don't have to fear muggers stealing our ID so as to rob us at our home address later. Incidentally, does that even make sense? Are the robbers in Mexico City so indecisive that they cannot pick a house to rob without some outside help?

    First Robber: Hey, man. What house should we rob?
    Second Robber: I don't know, homes. I can't decide.
    First Robber (looking at ID from a recent mugging): It says here that there's some houses over on First Street, ese.
    Second Robber: Awesome! Good thing this strategy isn't common, because then the police would know exactly where we plan to strike.

    I'm sure you can add your own accents. Most people would go with something out of East LA, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Speedy Gonzales.

     

    I know this is petty, but this particular misuse of words irritates me, and you were pretty rough on someone earlier for their grammar.  But you do not rob houses.  You rob people.   A person entering a house to take things from it would be a burglar, and they would be burglarizing the house.

     

    Wait... You expect criminals in Mexico City, who are speaking with Speedy Gonzales accents, to have perfect use of vocabulary?

    Where do you live where the criminals all (while looking at IDs they obtained from a recent mugging) use their higher level educations while speaking to each other? I'd like to live somewhere there's a more intellectual class of street thug myself; those here in Upstate New York are [b]so[/b] uncouth! 


Log in to reply