generali explain yourself

Mistermeaner

ging84 wrote: »

The predictions is absolutely sport on if you ask me

the whole petrol chemicals industry exists in the way it does now as an offshoot of the amount of oil products we burn as fuel.
the oil refining industry is massively geared towards maximising the % that can be used as fuel, there is plenty of scope for changes to the refinement process to produce less fuel and more other products from the same amount of oil, the same amount of other products could be produced form perhaps half the amount of oil used today, and that is without anyone looking for alternatives sources, or alternative products.

I see oil fast becoming the new coal, and gas becoming far more important, but still far less so than oil has been in the past as the world simply moves away from relying on burning things for energy.

Thanks.

Just for clarity when I refer to oil I include gas and shale in this as the extraction treatment and derivatives are all so similar if not identical

Mistermeaner

Accept that less and less oil could be used for automotive fuels and solar etc May provide power for homes but industrial consumption of energy is massive.

As post 2 above mentions that even though petrochemical use may be a small proportion of oil/gas consumption it is still a highly energy intensive process.

The beauty of oil and gas is they come with their own energy source for refining and cracking etc

I think the prediction has 15 years to run and as far as I'm aware only nuclear could meet that energy gap. Is there globally enough coming on line? Not as far as I know

mwpt

kinger101 wrote: »

Well, I think we'll stop burning oil long before we stop using it as a source of petrochemicals in the manufacturing industry. But eventually, petrochemicals will be replaced chemicals extracted from plants and engineered microbes.

The amount of chemicals present in agricultural waste alone is enormous, but we don't yet have the technology to break it down into simple chemical feedstocks in a cost effective manner.

It's all very fascinating. I would love to have sufficient financial freedom to retrain as a chemical or electronic engineer.

System

I've said all this before, but I'll say it again

It's a clever quote by someone who knew what he was talking about, but it's only superficially true, in the sense that we don't make hammers and axes out of stone any more.
But stones are used in modern cutting instruments, and minerals in general are vital to the electronics industry. So the stone age has not come to end, far from it.
Neither will the oil age ever end. It may well cease to be be the major source of power, but it will continue to provide more specialised functions, probably of higher value. It will never actually run out, and if sources seriously became insufficient, it, or its products will be manufactured artificially - just as stones are for many purposes.

Sanctioned_Parts_List

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Neither will the oil age ever end. It may well cease to be be the major source of power, but it will continue to provide more specialised functions, probably of higher value. It will never actually run out, and if sources seriously became insufficient, it, or its products will be manufactured artificially - just as stones are for many purposes.

Exactly this - fossil hydrocarbons only became the big business they are because of their relative ease of acquisition as an energy source. Petrochemical products are almost a happy side effect.

As soon as there is an equivalent cost or cheaper energy source that matches fossil HC for its immense convenience, then "big oil" will really start to decline, but not before.

Mistermeaner

now I'm just confused; who has been questioning the chickens motivation?

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

now I'm just confused; who has been questioning the chickens motivation?

How many times must we hear it said, "Why did the chicken cross the road"?

Perhaps it was simply to get to the other side. Perhaps, as Bob Dylan never said, "How many roads must a chicken cross?". Or as Aristotle didn't say that to realise its potential a chicken must question which side of the road it should be on.

I simply think it's time that chickens may cross the road whenever they choose without us people feeling the need to pass comment.

kinger101

Generali wrote: »

How many times must we hear it said, "Why did the chicken cross the road"?

Perhaps it was simply to get to the other side. Perhaps, as Bob Dylan never said, "How many roads must a chicken cross?". Or as Aristotle didn't say that to realise its potential a chicken must question which side of the road it should be on.

I simply think it's time that chickens may cross the road whenever they choose without us people feeling the need to pass comment.

If the chicken did choose to cross the road, free will exists. Therefore, people will always have a choice on whether they are curious as to why this occurred.

If the chicken did not in fact have a choice, and say a serious of biochemical reactions in the chicken's brain determined that it would cross the road, then similarly, us humans will also appear to be choosing whether or not to question the chicken's actions as a consequence of fate.

What was the chicken doing by the road anyway? It isn't safe. Feathery imbeciles.

CLAPTON

whilst is seems to me that the 'stone age' has come to an end, stone is still currently being used

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

whilst is seems to me that the 'stone age' has come to an end, stone is still currently being used

We've moved on from that now Clappers.

Chickens and their decision making processes are the subject of debate now.

Do try and keep up :eek: