The Paradox of fossil vs alternative fuels

Miscellaneous General
1

I have been reading this board for probably a year now and I really enjoy reading and learning. I am a member and have bought many books that I am still reading on my Kindle.

I know that there are some people here that are familiar with the oil industry and I am hoping that someone can maybe point me in the right direction regarding my thinking. My knowledge is limited to only what I have read on the net, so I realize that I could be way, way off base. I just want to know if I am thinking about this all wrong.

I understand that many products come from refining oil. I think most people understand this, but maybe not what all of them are (there are many). Where I think most seem to get lost is that they view the products made from refining oil as a sort of either/or type of manufacturing process. In other words, if we don’t need gasoline we’ll just make more propane or whatever. From what I understand, the useful things that are made from refining oil are actually all bi-products or fractions, meaning that you can’t make one without making the other. While many of the fractions are fuel (gasoline, propane, butane, kerosene, additives, fuel oil, etc), there are others that are not (bitumen, grease, lubricants, extrusions for plastics, etc).

I also understand that refinement is a 24x7 continuous manufacturing process which means that refiners refine as much oil as their operating capacity will allow. As the refining process runs, fractions are generated, stored and then shipped to where ever they need to go. I would assume that refiners don’t want to store any of the fractions and thus sell/ship them as fast as they make them. To get each fraction to sell, the refiners must adjust prices up or down based on the demand at that time for that fraction. I would assume that all fractions sold are consumed in a reasonable period of time and thus not stored long term.

The Paradox (or at least I think it is): It would seem to me that even if we found a new alternative fuel source that was as efficient as fossil fuels, we would still have to make fuel out of oil so that we can get the other fractions we still need. Because all fractions are consumed we have to make the same amount of fuel to make the same amount of other fractions (is this correct?). If people start consuming less fuel, the refiners will lower the price of fuels to sell off these fractions. When the price goes lower, the alternative source most likely will not be able to compete and an equilibrium will be reached where it is a matter of preference to use alternative fuel over fossil fuel. The paradox it would seem is that the more alternaive fuel we use, the cheaper fossil fuels become making the alternative fuel less attractive from an ecnomic stand point. It would seem that the only way alternative fuels can succeed is for us to either find ways to make the other useful fractions or government intervenes (ie high taxes, subsidies, etc).

2

Peak Oil doesn’t exist, it’s a myth.

3

Lol. Peak oil IS NOW. But because the decline hasnt started yet, it is hard to pinpoint the actual peak. Production has stayed flat for 5 years. Most recent data:

Peak oil discovery was already in the 60’s and has decreased massively since then.

4

While I find the concept of peak oil interesting, I am not sure how that relates to what I am asking which is whether the paradox I think exists, actually does.

5

If oil products of fuel are the only ones replaced by alternatives and oil is still popular for other things (like plastics) then correct, the fuel products will still be produced as waste (though the “waste” would probably be put to use). The greenies understand this completely, and this is why they advocate forced adoption of oil product alternatives in all markets, they just concentrate on fuel the most in their propaganda.

6

If the greens support allowing the fuel products to go to waste, then they would be presented with a new problem which is what to do with the toxic waste, which could be as bad as the problem they belive comes from burning it. A more disturbing reality is that the propaganda of the greens that is used to sell their agenda to the masses is that by going green we will no longer be dependent on foreign source oil. This appears to be an enormous lie as well. While I can understand why the greens and politicians would tell such a big lie, it seems strange that the energy industry would go along with this, unless they belive that they can gain government subsidies for pursuing a goal that is unachievable. I guess basically they view this as free money for them and good public relations at the same time.

It would appear that the most common sense solution would be to find ways to capture more of the energy from burning fossil fuels and find better ways to deal with the emissions then throwing so much money and brain power down the alternative energy rate hole. I also fear that as the government becomes desperate to create jobs (which we know is impossible), they are going to spend a ton of our future wealth on this low yeilding endeavor.

7

“it seems strange that the energy industry would go along with this”

some of the big energy companies are pushing big for alternative energy - and cap and trade etc… they put their money there years ago. i think the book was called Politically incorect guid to global warming ( could be getting titles mixed up).. excellent resourse and tells of the dirty inside working of big oil/energy and gov. to push the agenda.. written by a former Mccain staffer I belive , lawyer who was on the inside

8

As I explained, the greens advocate forcing oil replacements on society in all areas. Once all oil products have been replaced with “green” alternatives then processing oil will no longer be necessary, ending the toxic waste problem.

As has also been said, the smart ones saw this move coming years ago and have placed all their bets on a forced “Green Economy” being put into place. Now they are just trying to protect their investment.