Author
|
Topic: Buying Gas
|
globetrotter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5406
|
posted 26 September 2004 01:01 PM
As a new driver, I now find myself in a bit of a pickle when refilling the gas tank.Despite having a small and relatively fuel efficient vehicle, I still have to buy gas. In a world overflowing with greedy multinationals, I wonder if there's a company that has an ethical reputation. I know that Esso, Shell, and Irving have questionable practices, but am not sure why. Also, what if a "friendly" company just buys its fuel from one of the sources above? Help!
From: canada | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
globetrotter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5406
|
posted 26 September 2004 07:43 PM
Thanks for the advice!I've never heard of gasohol, but I'll certainly have a look into it. For the time being, then, I'll go with Petro Can. I hate buying gas.
From: canada | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641
|
posted 27 September 2004 02:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by fuslim: Gasohol is made mostly from corn, which uses a lot of nitrogen fertilizer.Fertilizer is made in plants that use huge amounts of natural gas. Just buy your gas and forget about it.
The ultimate problem with ethonal+gasoline mixtures...producing the ethanol requires lots of energy...stick with an old indirect injection diesl, and just use straight used+filtered vegetable oil.
From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546
|
posted 29 September 2004 05:52 PM
"Wouldn't it just be simpler to do away with combustion power altogether?"Absolutely true. However, a pretty good portion of North America would starve to death. In any case, infernal combustion engines will come to an end all by themselves when oil is no longer available. Best thing to do now is research those parts of the world where oil comsumption per capita is lowest. By seeing how those folks live, we can get a pretty good idea of how to live without oil.
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 29 September 2004 06:33 PM
I'll stick with clean water. However, I'll also stick with putting our houses in walking distance from our jobs, and when that isn't possible making damn sure there is a train or bus between the two. Also put the stores close to the houses. It's not rocket science, but we've allowed ourselves to be rooked into huge sprawling cities, where people feel forced to buy gas and spend hours/day in their cars just to survive. (They don't need to, but it will take awhile for everyone to realize it). As for buying gas, once you are buying you are contributing to demand, which motivates all the producers, not just the good ones. Consumer power is basically a corporate shell game (they'd rather we vote with our dollars than our ballots). Think really hard about whether you really need that car. Personally, I'll stick to my bike and spend the extra thousands each year on travel and fun stuff (like Whistler tickets).
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kukuchai
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6215
|
posted 29 September 2004 07:32 PM
Since the Oil Wars began I've seriously been considering letting go of my vehicle. I figured it out and I would save quite a bit of money. It might take some getting used to, especially for my kids. On the other hand, the $200 per month saved could be used for any number of other things around here; the sale of the van would pay off a few debts; I'd be making my little itsy bitsy contribution toward cleaner air; I wouldn't be contributing to the coffers of rich oil execs; and I might sleep better at night knowing that nobody's innocent blood ran in the desert on my behalf. Hmmm!
From: Earth | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546
|
posted 29 September 2004 10:33 PM
"Gee last time I checked, those countries had shitty water, no healthcare and very high infant mortality rates do you really want to live like that?"Of course not! (neither do they). I think the point I was making is that we'll have to get used to no oil eventually. Do you believe there can be an industrial society without oil? I suggest there can't. What do you think a a post-industrial world will look like? A bunch of hydrogen powered cars whisking us here and there about a kind and gentle landscape filled with beautiful energy efficient buildings and windmills? Without oil, none of that stuff would (or could) exist. You can pretty well measure the standard of living of a society by the oil it consumes. I'll grant that a lot is wasted (roughly 45% of world gasoline is burned up in the US), but there is still huge oil consumption in agriculture, production of electricity, and manufacturing, expecially heavy industry. The US has looked more energy efficient over the last 30 years, but that's mostly a result of manufacturing moving elsewhere. So I believe it's time to start thinking of a society without oil. There are lessons to be learned from those who are doing without oil now.
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 29 September 2004 10:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by fuslim:
I think the point I was making is that we'll have to get used to no oil eventually.Do you believe there can be an industrial society without oil? I suggest there can't.
An industrial society existed before it became dependent on oil. Dramatic changes will be needed, yes, but I don't see why it can't happen. quote:
What do you think a a post-industrial world will look like? A bunch of hydrogen powered cars whisking us here and there about a kind and gentle landscape filled with beautiful energy efficient buildings and windmills?Without oil, none of that stuff would (or could) exist.
True in the sense that if we had not used oil up to this point we might not have developed to the point of having these things. But that's a far cry from saying that we can't find any other way of producing them.Take plastics, for example. Most of the plastics we use today are made from oil. But there's no reason why this has to be so. Polymers can be formed from many substances (indeed, life would not exist without polymers). We might not be able to produce them at the same rate we do now, but that just means we'll have to reduce our nonessential use of them. quote:
You can pretty well measure the standard of living of a society by the oil it consumes.
Again, this is true today, but it wasn't always this way, and needn't be this way forever. The present economic system is heavily tied to oil, but most of us want to change the present economic system anyway- otherwise we probably wouldn't be going to rabble.ca very much, would we? quote:
So I believe it's time to start thinking of a society without oil. There are lessons to be learned from those who are doing without oil now.
Sure, but we shouldn't assume that's the only possible outcome. Promoting a defeatist attitude like yours is likely to make the situation worse. Ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 29 September 2004 11:29 PM
Yours truly now lives in a sprawling suburban area...with no car! True, there is some public transit, but it is not frequent enough for me to rely on it to get me where I want to go, when I want to go. So how do I get around? I walk! I don't have a bike and haven't ridden one in many years, although I'm considering investing in one for emergencies. But not immediately. So what one has to get used to is, well, walking a lot. For long periods of time. My feet hurt somewhat, but that is improving as my feet get used to being used so much. I carry most of my groceries home, six bags at a time, while walking. I take rests now and then, and then trudge on. One does get used to it. It was hellish for the first couple of weeks, but that's because it was really really hot. It's cooled down now, and it's even somewhat pleasant to walk a lot. But my point is, if you're healthy, it is possible even to live in suburbia and walk to everything. True, there exists suburbia even worse than what I live in. But most people here drive cars, though I have discovered that they don't really need to.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 30 September 2004 12:15 AM
quote: So I believe it's time to start thinking of a society without oil. There are lessons to be learned from those who are doing without oil now.
Those societies have all the things I mentioned in my first (admittedly snarky post) I realize that industrial civilization cannot exist forever, I also acknowledge that hydrogen is probably a red herring. The problem is that in your zeal to promote a oil free society, you seem to forget that we will have to do with out x-ray machines, cat scans, and almost every medical advance western societies have made in the last 50 years. How do you propose we deal with these health care crises. Will we have to perform surgery on ourselves with no anesthetic? I'm currently imagining myself dying of prostate cancer in my early forties(in about 20 years) because the technology will no longer exist to treat it. I'm very frightened. [ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546
|
posted 30 September 2004 05:47 AM
"Sure, but we shouldn't assume that's the only possible outcome. Promoting a defeatist attitude like yours is likely to make the situation worse. Ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy?"Gee, I didn't think we'd run out of oil because of my attitude. I thought we'd run out because we came to the end of the supply. Oil is the storage of hundreds of millions of years of energy from the sun. It took literally hundreds of millions of years to accumulate the level of oil reservoirs extant at the end of the 17th century. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution around the mid 1700's, humans have burnt up several hundred million years worth of stored solar energy. That energy will not be replaced in any less than the hundreds of millions of years it took to make it. Technology, manufacturing, agriculture, medicine, in fact the whole world economy floats on a lake of oil. When the oil is gone, so also will be the technology, manufacturing, etc. etc. All of the so-called alternatives such as ethanol, windmills, solar panels, etc., require enormous amounts of input energy, most of it in the form of oil. Even hydrogen power has a higher energy input than output. The head of Ballard power, surely one of the leaders in hydrogen technology, when asked where the hydrogen was going to come from said for the foreseeable future it would come from natural gas. Well, it don't take much to figure out that if hydrogen is coming from natural gas, you're not saving energy. If we lived in a different economic system we might have the chance to ameliorate the impact of the loss of oil. Unfortunately, capitalism cannot voluntarily forego the use of energy. Even if capitalism was overthrown, I doubt many political leaders would like to stand up in front of their constituents and tell them they were going to have to take a huge drop in standard of living in order to conserve oil for later generations. Remember also that oil is used for lubrication. There are substitutes, but they all require a high energy input to create. In any case,I don't think I'm being defeatist, I think I'm being realistic. from another poster: " The problem is that in your zeal to promote a oil free society, you seem to forget that we will have to do with out x-ray machines, cat scans, and almost every medical advance western societies have made in the last 50 years." Now here's someone who thinks I trying to promote an oil free society. I have to say it amazes me that two different readers can read the same thing and come to starkly different conclusions about what I said. To make it clear, I am not promoting an oil free society, nor am I saying nothing can be done to lessen the impact of the loss of oil. What I said was that if we want to know what an oil free society looks like, we should look at societies (economies) which currently use little oil. Despite the fact that alternative technologies are freely available to everyone, the worst economies are still the ones that use the least oil. Why do you think that is? Think also of this. Those societies which use the least oil still have access (albeit limited) to the machinery of the industrial societies. Without that access they would be even worse off. Not facing facts now is not going to save us. We'll face them eventually, and the longer we wait to face them the worse it will be.
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 30 September 2004 12:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Those societies have all the things I mentioned in my first (admittedly snarky post) I realize that industrial civilization cannot exist forever, I also acknowledge that hydrogen is probably a red herring. The problem is that in your zeal to promote a oil free society, you seem to forget that we will have to do with out x-ray machines, cat scans, and almost every medical advance western societies have made in the last 50 years. How do you propose we deal with these health care crises. Will we have to perform surgery on ourselves with no anesthetic? I'm currently imagining myself dying of prostate cancer in my early forties(in about 20 years) because the technology will no longer exist to treat it. I'm very frightened. [ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Your logic doesn't work. We will still have the technology, because technology is knowledge. Do you think that when we can't fill our cars, we will burn the libraries and kill the intellectuals? Let's not mix up oil with energy. We couldn't do those things (i.e. x-rays)without energy, but oil is only one source of energy. 5 years ago wind was competitive with oil on a kwh basis, now it is presumably pulling ahead. There are dozens of other ways to get energy, particularly if we focus on improving energy efficiency. THere will always be enough oil for the absolutely essential plastics etc. It will become uneconomical for mass use and production long before the last drop is burned. We also have dozens of other ways to make plastics (vegetable oil, among others).
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 30 September 2004 02:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by fuslim: [b]Oil is the storage of hundreds of millions of years of energy from the sun.
No, it isn't. I hear this way too much. Yes, it is energy from the sun. Yes, it took hundreds of millions of years to get stored. That does not mean that it is hundreds of millions of years of energy from the sun, any more than fossils represent hundreds of millions of years of total biomass. Oil got deposited sometimes, in some places, and represents the corpses of some creatures from those places. Those creatures were a subset of the total of creatures in their region. Those regions were a very small subset of the globe. In short, the biomass being deposited into oil or coal represented a tiny chunk of the total ecosystem at any given time. Then as now, most of everything was re-used; eaten, rotted, turned into humus, recycled into the bodies of the next generation of critters. And the ecoystem itself doesn't use up the world's total energy input from the sun. Yes, oil and coal make up a huge chunk of energy--that's why combusting it all at once in one or two centuries is seriously increasing the amount of CO2 in the air. But think about it--if it really represented hundreds of millions of years of total biomass, burning it all at once wouldn't just be maybe doubling the CO2, it would be multiplying it by a factor of millions. It would utterly swamp the ongoing combustion from living creatures' metabolisms, and by extension swamp plants' uptake of CO2 and release of oxygen. We'd have a CO2 atmosphere with trace oxygen by now. So, long story short, yes oil is going to be tough to replace as an energy source, yes alternative sources will probably still mean less available energy when all's said and done, but the reduction need not be as horrifically drastic as some think. [ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 30 September 2004 02:54 PM
quote: We also have dozens of other ways to make plastics (vegetable oil, among others).
What about fulsim's arguement that we would have to use nitrogen based furtalizers to produce large amouts of vegetable oil? Thank you for being optimistic by the way. [ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546
|
posted 30 September 2004 07:57 PM
"Go ask an organic farmer whether they'd require nitrogen based fertilizers to produce vegetable oil."While you're at it, ask them how many million barrels of vegetable oil they can produce on their farms. Then ask them how much energy would be required to make that vegetable oil usable in high-temperature applications. The other thing you might ask them is how much water they use to create the biomass used for oil production. I just found an interesting statement that points out some of the problems with ethanol. http://www.eia.doe.gov "Since 1980, ethanol has enjoyed considerable success. U.S. production has grown by about 12 percent per year, reaching 1.4 billion gallons in 1998 (Figure 1). U.S. gasoline consumption in 1998 was approximately 120 billion gallons... ...Ethanol does not compete directly with gasoline, even at comparable costs, because its energy (Btu) content is lower than that of gasoline. It takes approximately 1.5 gallons of ethanol do deliver the same mileage as 1 gallon of gasoline... ...Significant barriers to the success of cellulose-derived ethanol remain. For example, it may be difficult to create strains of genetically engineered yeast that are hardy enough to be used for ethanol production on a commercial scale. In addition, genetically modified organisms may have to be strictly contained. Other issues include the cost and mechanical difficulties associated with processing large amounts of wet solids." The bottom line is there is no free lunch. Ethanol, which will be the replacement for gasoline eventually has significant issues associated with it. Someone else argued with my statement about oil reserves representing hundreds of millions of years of solar energy. I'm sorry but oil is the result of the sun's energy being captured by plant and animal life, and subsequently being buried and squeezed at the correct temperature. If oil came about by some other process I would like to know. No sun, no oil. No hundreds of millions of years of accumulated biomass, no oil. In 250 years, we've used close to half of the hundreds of millions of years worth of stored oil. When will we learn that this is unsustainable. When will we learn that oil (the old-fashioned comin' up outa the ground type) is the world's most precious resource. We know human society has been around for 40-50 thousand years. Will we have usable quantities of oil 40 thousand years from now?
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 30 September 2004 09:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
What about it? Go ask an organic farmer whether they'd require nitrogen based fertilizers to produce vegetable oil. Frankly, nitrogen-based fertilizers going bye-bye is a *silver lining* to the end of oil, not an extra problem. The list of problems that stuff has created or worsened, political, economic, environmental, and even agricultural, is practically endless.
What about it?? Several billion gaping mouths are dependant on the food provided by the petrochemical intenstive "green" revolution, which combined new highly productive food stuff grains with lots of chemical food, in particular natural gas derived nitrogren. "That stuff" hasn't created the problems -- it was the post- WWII population explosion that necessiated adopting such agri-culture/business techniques in order to avoid some Malthusian like conclusion.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 01 October 2004 01:14 PM
Acre for acre, don't organic farmers produce more food, with more variety?Vegetable oil is a red herring. It is useful for many things (including cooking), but as fuslim points out, wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on fuel. That doesn't mean there aren't dozens of options out there. If we have much smaller cars, run them on electricity, and get our electricity thropugh sustainable means, we can adapt. Sustainable means currently mean hydroelectric, wind, solar (expensive), geothermal, tidal (eventually). There is a lot of energy moving things around on our planet. We can harness some of it, if we focus our technology on figuring those things out (tidal is the most obvious in need of development).
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|