48 replies to this topic

[Solinx]

Sure we should try to make the environment cleaner, but at what point do we stop? At the trucks that carry your food to the market? At the harvester that gathers the crop that you eat? At the tractor that cullivates the crop? At the one that plants it? How about the one that makes the beds, or the ditch for irrigation?

Global Warming may cause disaster for third world farmers, but so would the removal of their equipment methinks.

Indeed, I won't listen to this.

Those trucks, harvesters, tractors, etc. are indeed on the list of things that can definetly change to the benefit of the environment.

And not in a proposterous manner of removing them.


The study I do is about managing innovation. There are three paths to choose in the study. The one I chose is Mobility and Infrastucture. This path focusses on improving the mobility of people and goods. There is no clear definition of the term mobility possible, but to be very blunt you could say it is about increasing the options of transport and the distance that can be travelled within a certain time.

There are a lot of things that need to be taken into consideration when judging innovations that have this goal. One of them is the effect on the natural environment. Among others, the use of fuel falls in this category.

According to teachers I have been attending lessons of during last year, the availability of fossil fuel is not a problem for a long time to come. There is enough to supply the demand for centuries. When you hear that fossil fuel will run out during our lifetime, the talk is probably about the supply that is economically viable at this moment.

Technology progresses. The quality of the raw oil has slowly degraded, but due to technological improvements, you don't notice a thing. The same will happen with the economic viability of fossil fuels. The depleting of the currently economical viable resources affect all. This triggers a search for new technologies to increase the share of economical viable resources.


What we need to ask ourselves, is whether we want this? Whether this is actually more rewarding (economical, social and environmental) than choosing alternatives.

Economical aspect would (for example) be to compare the cost it would take to let a car drive x Km (or Mile) for each option. To take into account the possible variating effects of mass production, there should be different distances.
The cost are from well to wheel, meaning not only the delving, but also (among others) the transport and containment of the fuel, as well as the estimated required costs to develop the required technology.

Social aspect would be negative health effects caused by the exhaustion of the fuels, noise levels from the engines (although I believe tires produced more noise), and the dangers when hardly any noise, or none at all, is produced.

Environmental effects would be the production of CO2, but also completely different things, such as the effect noise has on animal behavior.


These are just examples, and far from a complete list of the factors and complexity involved in the decisions. To give one more example, the negative effects on Social and Environmental aspects usually have a negative effect on the Economical viability for the community as a whole. This is probably more noticable in Europe.


Now to come back to the question of "at which point do we stop?" We don't. We will constantly be improving and choosing the most viable solution. (which isn't necessarily the best solution, but that will probably complicate matters too much )

For the mobility sector, which includes trucks, and indirect affects farming machines, the fossil fuels will be the most viable option for quite some time to come. (I can't predict anything with certainty of course. It could be 1 year, it could be a 100) At this moment, the costs for developing the alternatives are too high for compagnies to adapt them and maintain a profit. However, because there are those who care little for profit, those who like to take a chance, those who like to prepare for the future, and those who are just plain fools, the alternative technologies advance nonetheless. Some more than others, but it contributed to the choice to start development and production of cars with Hybrid engines. A step that makes the alternatives to fossil fuel more viable.


I could go on, but I got other things to do, and I think my point is clear.

If none of you believe me, I can understand. There are some things I said here that aren't exactly fitting to the average picture people may have about the subject. Some sources I simply have no access to anymore (unless I contact my old teachers), for rest I simply don't have time, nor urge, to find decent articles for.

Solinx

[Ash]

Heh, while I agree and (somewhat) comprehend what you're saying here, Solinx, it's difficult to see what your argument is.

Although I might be so bold as to venture that it refers to the fact that as soon as fossil fuels are used up the economy is screwed anyway regardless of global warming if we don't do something about sustainability now. So, for all intents and purposes, we might as well find those alternatives rather than trying to live on borrowed time.

I assume that was the jist of it. If not, I'll take credit for that argument slant myself.

Edited by Paradox, 21 March 2007 - 04:22 PM.

[Solinx]

hehe, yeah, it's one and a half years of study stuffed in a fairly short post. And sometimes I didn't know the precise word to describe things, so I completely understand if not all I said was clear.


The argument is that when fossil fuels becomes harder to aquire, environmental standards are raised, alternatives to fossil fuel can become more economical viable options. Possibly becoming more economical viable than continueing the use of fossil fuel. This does not mean economy is screwed, certainly not. Some companies who fail to adapt will be screwed, but there will be other companies to replace them. Innovation is just another part of the economy.
Edit: Important is to note that innovation usually doesn't happen over night, it takes a long time. This gives the economie and it's companies time to react to the changes.


Also, it doesn't mean one of the alternatives is the only possibe outcome. By the looks of things, fossil fuels will be the most viable option for quite some time. (I could try to explain why the alternatives are impossible to use on great scale right now, but that takes too much time) Technology doesn't stop at the alternatives, there are also developments in the fossil fuel sector. The vastly improved refining process is an example. Developments such as filters to reduce the toxic fumes leaving the exhaust are another example. It might be that future developments, or the lack of development at the alternatives, make that the fossil fuels remains the best viable option.


If you want to know more about how economy won't fail:

The change of fuel won't happen over night, and while the new technologies are rising, there will be a spurt of small innovations on the fossil fuel side, extending the lifetime a bit, but in the end they will have to make a choice. Their options are to adapt the new technology or enter a niche market. (A market targeted at a specific customer group, owners of old timers would be an example)

If they don't act, the company will likely go backrupt in the end, but there will be other companies, new or old, who have by then grown to replace the old company. The economy has new players, or players who changed roles, but the game goes on.


Even if fossil fuel remains used, the players may change if new technologies arise to take the place of others. Also, if the cost to retrieve the fuel will rise, the increase wil take place over time, allowing the economy to adapt. Also, the higher the price of fossil fuel, the greater the opportunities for new alternatives to grow. At some point the/an alternative(s) that is available at lower prices can become the new leading fuel type, replacing fossil fuel.


This probably won't clear up things for everyone, and there is again a lot more to say.
I hope it at least shows how innovation is pretty complex, and unpredictable at times. But not destructive to the economy.

Solinx

[Hostile]

http://www.priweb.or...es/plastic.html

How will we make plastic after we run out of oil? Anyone ever thought of that. It was estimated there are less than 300 years left of traditional oil reserves.

Imagine that. Getting rid of plastic as a by product of running out of oil. And the fact that somjething so ingoranic as plastic is actually made from the organic compounds. How odd...?

[Solinx]

Interesting. I didn't know about the plastic, thanks

Estimates about the number of years traditional will be able to support us depend at lot on the selection of variables taken into account and the wild guessing involved. One can simply not say how much power we will consume in a 100 years, to name an example.

But let's stick with a time between 50 and 300 years, a wide range that should statisfy most people.


If we now consider the continueing development of the last years, it's save to say there is a chance that we have found alternatives to plastic by the time oil would run out.

Because we then have the costs of removing the plastic, techniques such as recycling the plastic to diesel may become viable, giving us a new source for more traditional fuel

http://www.ozmotech.com.au/
Look under Division and then "waste to energy"

Note: This is all very, very unlikely tho, as during 50 or 300 years, it's more likely that other technologies will have been developed for fueling vehicles.

Solinx

[Athena]

"You will probably be surprised to know that a plastic bottle is made from the same petrochemical as the fiber we call polyester!" XD not really. I believe my Catalysis course involved processes like this.

But yeah, we'll see in some years what they come up with to make it from. There's a lot of plastic made so at a point we'd definitely need to think of other ways to make it (or variants of it).

[Ash]

We'll probably end up adding chemicals to rubber to make it perform similarly. Or something.

[Alsch]

To comment to the changing opinions of scientists; I prefer to think of these global "changes" as a very general, vague global the-climate-is-f*cked. I hate it when people just deny that the crap their pouring into the air does nothing. Them, and the idiots with the hummers who complain about oil prices.

[Hostile]

No one is denying that pumping tons of stuff into the atmosphere is bad and not having some polution effect. I think the point was that the hard science hasn't proved that climate changes are man made.

Read above local climate changes happened recently and they were not man made.


Also read:
http://forum.physorg...i...=14&t=12745

It's the same arguement except by scientists. Seems they like to flame thier passions as well on forums.