Robert McFarlane: Open Fuel Standards Are Critical to Fighting the Peak Oil Catastrophe

[nickbert]

@sofistek

Well, yes, if this was part of a wider plan to change our living arrangements then there might be some merit in it but I didn’t get the impression, at all, that McFarlane was thinking in those terms.

I don’t either.  That doesn’t mean we can’t take the idea and adapt it to our own expectations and goals, though.

And now you are even imagining a revolution in personal transport though I hope you wouldn’t see such a revolution as allowing business as usual to continue.

No, actually I don’t expect any such revolution in personal transportation that would keep things the way they are.  I will however allow for the possibility of something that may provide opportunities for limited personal transportation using the in-situ resources available and being less reliant on long supply chains (of either energy or materials).  Even with that said I’m not counting on it, and am still planning with the assumption that mobility via personal motorized transportation will be greatly reduced or largely unavailable (depending on what you’re using) and advocating to anyone who’ll listen to plan accordingly. 

Actually, I doubt flex fuel vehicles would do much, as most would simply fill up (or the equivalent) with whatever is the cheapest. Provided no fuel is subsidised in any way and all external costs are internalised, I’m not sure McFarlane’s idea would have the intended effect.

I don’t see flex fuel doing much to help the economy or making fuel cheaper either, no matter how ideal the situation (no subsidies and such).  Again, the value I see in multi-fuel vehicles is taking our societies away from single points of failure and a less abrupt transition to lower-energy consumption.  The stresses and pressures from high prices and shortages will still be there to influence changes in behavior, but the idea is to keep the rate of change from overwhelming our ability to adapt. 

• Nickbert

[Former_User]

Again – you miss the point – however, I am still to see any meaningful input with the relevant scienctific research, including links as to how you arrive at your assessments.Whilst we await further developments from the Cassini space-probe about “Methane Rain on Titan,” - perhaps you may yet give us your thoughts on the answers to “What Next?” for a world with limited, affordable & easily extractable oil?
cheers

[Former_User]

Albatross,
I’m not sure if you intended your post to come across as blatantly disrespectful as it does, but if so, please check the attitude.

I for one resent the following statement:

however, I am still to see any meaningful input with the relevant scienctific research, including links as to how you arrive at your assessments.

Are you the arbitor of what is “relevant”?
Are you saying that the research presented all over this forum is invalid because you didn’t get a debate sized and fitted to your posts here?
Are you considering the other points of view, or have you made up your mind? 

I presented principles, links and information for discussing the counterpoints to your presented data - and you ignored it. So please don’t say “I am still to see any meaningful input with the relevant scienctific research”, because you have failed at presenting relevant scientific research. All you have done is presented articles that commensurate with your beliefs.

That is not doing research, it’s citing research if you do it properly, which you didn’t.

So we can say you have not done research either, but picked  tidy articles that look as if they’re supporting your position, when in fact, the only one that does is “Viewzone”. Does that sound scientifically credible?
DId you read the paper regarding the “Abiotic Theory”?

The article states “Scientists Prove Abiotic Oil”. That’s a bold claim. So I read the paper.
It goes on to state the bio-chemical processes involved in gas formation and speculates that because most oil reserves are found near plates in the earths mantle, that oil must come from the interior of the earth. This is called speculation, not proof because it’s not “proving” anything - it’s a thesis paper presenting “food for thought” through conjectural and speculative observations mixed with some high level mathematics and physics. It’s not implausible, but proving and showing possibility are two seperate things.

No one “found” the algae that “create” oil. No one “Observed the process” of oil being created abiotically.
Your article just took cogent and practical set of observations and pronounced the issue solved.

You should more carefully scrutinize your sources, and more politely consider what others say.
Also, “SEARCH” is your friend. Top right.

Cheers,

Aaron 

[green_achers]

Thanks, Aaron.  I could have been more polite, but it was never my intention to debate the issue.  As I indicated, the issue of abiotic oil has been debated in many forums, including here, and I have no interest in it at this time.  I wasn’t talking to Albatross at all at first, but commenting on how the subject had been diverted away from the appropriateness of giving a documented criminal and influence peddler a venue to spread his propaganda.  I was also commenting on the need to keep our eyes on the ball not be turned by diversions that are unlikely to change anything of importance, when we would be better off sticking to our preps.
Whether that’s a well-heeled lobbyist promoting wasteful fuel alternatives or a someone who just stumbled upon the concept of abiotic oil doesn’t matter.  We all have to be able to exercise a healthy filtering ability to all of the noise out there.

That doesn’t mean that I’m not open to a divergent voice if the source is credible.  The Oil Drum and Stuart Staniford are two places I go to to read diverse educated opinions on the scientific and technical aspects of our situation.  I come to this forum to catch very diverse opinions on the economic, financial, and to some extent, policy aspects.  I find John Michael Greer, Dimitri Orlov and Sharon Astyk  great sources for historic and a practical perspectives.  They and a few other sources are a pretty broad group, and some, like the Oil Drum and Stuart, are not strangers from airing contrarian positions.  I suspect if there is anything to this or some other claim, it will be discussed with insight and clarity on one of these forums by someone I have learned to respect.

I can’t devote the time or have the background to conduct primary-source research on every tangent that comes across the screen.  I have enough of a science background that I can form pretty good personal opinions based on secondary sources, but I have to be able to apply an educated filter to the process.  Having a poster show up with 2-3 posts breathlessly pumping the latest techno-fix to our well-documented problems is not likely to get a friendly response.

You did well to refer him to the search function.

[Former_User]

Aaron - I will explain;1.   My comments were not directed to you - [see para 3] - neither do I claim that “all research on this forum is invalid.” - on the contrary, I have been a forum member for some time now, and I appreciate Chris, his team and their sentiments…neither am I some “breathless new member fixated on my own theories…”
2.   My concern is that we are all being pushed toward extremely risky political, economical & military strategies by Big Govt and their minions.
3.   In this particular topic - Robert McFarlane’s interview includes these words – “…Critical to Fighting the Peak Oil Catastrophe.”
4.   My research leads me to reject such absolutes like Oil = Fossil Fuel & Peak Oil Catastrophe.      Why??         Because of dogma like this;
       a)  Source:    http://www.ecokids.ca/pub/eco_info/topics/energy/ecostats/index.cfm
       b)  Source:     DISCOVERING FOSSILS | What are fossil fuels? How do they form?
       c)  Source:     http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=oil_home-basics
       d)  Source:     http://www.jfcom.mil/ — paper entitled “The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 — JOE 2010”
5.   Even the US Energy Agency is filled with statements that oil comes from fossil fuels.  In source (d) The JOE 2010 paper, elaborates further –> Peak Oil –> middle east holds most oil  –> choke points –> Straits of Hormuz –> immense threat to Western Economies…
6.   Therefore future events may well be triggered by the fossil fuel lobby - the implication being that if oil shipments are stopped at critical choke points, then we should prepare for economic argageddon or war.
7.    This means that we have education, economic and military websites mutually supporting the fossil fuel myth.  Yes - I call it a myth - [see para 11 below] 
8.    There is ample proof that we are all being indoctrinated by not just lies about fossil fuels, but as John Williams from Shadowstats.com informs us – every govt statistic is also a lie.

9.     No one "found" the algae that "create" oil. No one "Observed the process" of oil being created abiotically. Your article just took cogent and practical set of observations and pronounced the issue solved.

  10.   I do not pronounce the issue solved at all - however other govts [such as New Zealand] appear to be moving away from the "fossil fuel" theory;          Source:    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1011/S00025/new-zealand-defence-white-paper-2010.htm   11.   The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA published in 2002 the details of the Russian-Ukranian abiotic theory, dedicated to Nikolai Alexandrovich Kudryavtsev - who first enunciated the theory;          Source:    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full 12.    If we all keep following the rest of the crowd, we may find ourselves channelled down the path to yet another major war.   I don't wish to see more wars based upon false theories -- does this clarify my position?   @ green_archers --- thankyou for the references -- I have also visited The Oil Drum -- but none of the others - more homework now.. cheers    

[christopher21]

<a href=”http://www.zigwheels.com/newcars/HM~Mitsubishi”>HM-Mitsubishi</a>

[Former_User]

With rising gas prices, even people who don’t care so much about being green are finding less gas-guzzling options. The eco-friendly people, won’t also walk everyday or rely on public vehicles because some countries don’t have reliable public transit. Luckily there are plenty of options for fuel-efficient cars. Mazda intends to reveal its brand new Takeri concept at the Tokyo Auto Show in late November. The car will feature a creative regenerative braking system. The brakes will power the car’s electrical functions and thereby conserve fuel. Article resource: New Takeri concept car hints at next generation Mazda6