Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Now Do You Get It? by poasterchild Now Do You Get It? by poasterchild
Please disseminate widely, thank you! This does not give permission to alter or claim credit for this re-mixed work, for which I retain all copyrights. The original illustration is in the public domain.

If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconkdick0987654321:
Kdick0987654321 Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013
Sad but true.
Reply
:iconambou:
ambou Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
This is brillliant! Have you heard about Henry Ford's hemp car that also ran on hemp fuel? Hemp produces around 4 times more cellulose per acre than trees apparently. I am not as well-versed as you on the topic of alternative fuels so I would like to hear your opinion on it. Hemp also has hundreds of other uses, but that's a whole other topic. Big fan of your work. :3
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Actually, the advantage of hemp over hardwoods or switchgrass is greater than that. Here in Virginia, one can reliably expect to harvest 5 to 6 dry tons of biomass per acre per year from these two sources (it will vary depending on the region of the country and the exact species of trees involved). Hemp, on the other hand, will yield 22 dry tons per acre per year, but, again here in Virginia, one can generate two such harvests per year, or, 44 dry tons per acre per year -- an advantage more like 7 to 1. See also: [link], and especially the commentary attached to [link].
Reply
:iconambou:
ambou Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012
Whoa even better. Thanks for the linkage and sharing your art and your activist spirit. Here's hoping hemp makes a big comeback!
Reply
:iconsouthernob:
southernob Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2012
man, I love this, good job point out some obvious yet so inconvenient truth...
Reply
:iconcitrineg:
CitrineG Featured By Owner Jun 13, 2012  Student Digital Artist
an excellent reason to go green!
Reply
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
:iconakira1555:
Akira1555 Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012
Most of the progress in automobile is made with thanks to competition, mostly F1. And since we don't have competitive engines working with "green" energy... We also don't have any reliable alternatives for plastics yet (biodegradable isn't good enough for long term stuff, but studied).

On an other side, firms are getting African farmers out of their own farms to put colza instead of food, to develop "green fuel. Problem is, one does not eat colza... Same with sugarcane in Brazil, such a model with biofuel, where most of the fields are held by powerful families. Not like most of them would feed the local population either anyway. Neither would the cane.

On an other side, a the end of their life, electric cars with lithium batteries release as much toxic stuff as the thermic cars. And recycling batteries cost much more than say, just releasing it in the air and let the planet do her job. Add the fact that some people need their cars (business and stuff), and having a vehicle which can save enough energy and is slower, even if it's cleaner isn't useful.

Wind turbines make much noise and take lots of space. Basically, everybody want it, but NIMBY. Solars panels doesn't produce enough for what they cost, even if it's reliable and safe. Both are also weather dependent.

Seems we're stuck with petrol until it runs out.

"Such intelligent weapons, that kill each other, like the Gears of War, Hoo-rah!!!"
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
"Seems we're stuck with petrol until it runs out." ~Akira1555

No, it seems like you are a totally uniformed idiot or a troll paid for by the oil, coal, and electric power companies. You are addressing a Ph.D. qualified professional in energy policy who worked on these issues at one of the country's leading engineering universities, and raised over a million dollars in Federal research funds to support those efforts, so just shut the fuck up.

This is one of the major problems with the internet. Any asshole, like ~Akira1555 here, can find some Koch brothers' funded bullshit on the web, and pass it off as Gospel truth, and most readers will take his opinion as "equal" to mine, because they haven't studied these issues enough to tell the difference between science and bullshit.

A couple of quick points: the fastest race cars in the world run on alcohol, a biofuel, not petroleum derivatives; sugarcane works in Brazil because the climate is appropriate to grow it and they grew it long before it became an easily exploitable source for ethanol (alcohol). It is not a viable option in the United States, Europe, Russia, and most of China because the climate is generally not amenable to growing it in those areas, and they are the collectively much greater contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change than is Brazil.

I don't support electric cars because they burn coal, which is how about 70% of the electricity consumed in the United States is produced. That's your straw man. Go fuck yourself with it. As to colza, people are looking at a lot of things, including using blue green algae to produce a bio-oil that can replace petroleum. But the fact that one can produce stuff in the lab that is workable technically doesn't mean that it will work commercially. The problem with algae, for example, lies in the amount of energy required to separate the bio-oil from the other organic matter and the vast amounts of water in which the algae grow.

I mentioned neither solar nor wind. They are workable to a point, but that's not the point. I did not introduce them into the discussion. You did, as another straw man. Go fuck yourself with that one, too.

What I did mention was the manufacture of a bio-oil from wood and other biomass using a technique called Fractional Catalytic Pyrolysis (FCP) invented by Foster Agblevor of Utah State University. This has already been demonstrated to be a 100% effective green replacement for crude petroleum in a commercial petroleum refinery. Any petroleum fraction can be produced from this stuff using existing infrastructure including gasoline, diesel, and home heating oil. A "well to wheels" total lifecycle analysis using the method developed by Dr. Michael Wang at the Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago reveals that the bio-oil produced by FCP produces 61% less particulate pollution than does the burning of conventional petroleum diesel, and ZERO net emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur, or aromatics.

Fractional Catalytic Pyrolysis (FCP) uses a proprietary catalyst during fast pyrolysis to convert biomass components into desirable products without the need for secondary processing or separation techniques. Previously, this had not been possible and extraction of intermediate chemicals (e.g., phenols, cresols) from pyrolysis oil produced by conventional fast pyrolysis could not be done in an economic fashion. FCP is applicable to whole biomass feedstocks, biomass-to-ethanol residues, and organosolv pulping residues. Potential products include direct substitutes for crude petroleum, and petroleum-derived No. 2 distillate, phenols, and cresols. In this process, the carbohydrate fraction of the lignocellulose is selectively converted into C1-C4 hydrocarbons, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The hydrocarbons may then be steam reformed in a second reactor into hydrogen-rich gas. Further conversion of this gas via Fischer-Tropsch catalysis yields > 40 gallons of “green No. 2” distillate equivalent per dry ton of biomass. The lignin fraction of the biomass is converted in situ into monomeric phenols with commercial potential, with a yield of approximately 400 pounds (40 gallons) of monomeric phenols per dry ton of biomass. A third product is biochar, which is useful as a soil amendment. At current prices, using this system, one dry ton of biomass costing $40 can be converted into fuels and chemical products with a wholesale value of $400. In the alternative, instead of a monomeric phenol-rich pyrolysis oil, adjustment of the process will produce a direct replacement for light, sweet crude petroleum at a cost of $65 per barrel at the same yield (40 gallons per dry ton). It has been demonstrated that this “green crude” may be mixed with petroleum and refined by conventional petroleum refining technology into the entire array of petrochemical products with no modifications of refinery equipment or operations required.

Unique Attributes. Until the advent of Fractional Catalytic Pyrolysis, it was not economically feasible to de-polymerize lignin into monomers, thus leaving non-reactive high molecular weight lignins that could only be burned for their energy value. Fractional Catalytic Pyrolysis de-polymerizes the lignin during fast pyrolysis, yielding about 10 pounds of valuable low molecular weight phenols for every gallon of “green No. 2” produced. This new technology promises to be a major breakthrough as compared to all existing non-petroleum based production methods, and will:

➢ produce both “green No. 2” and low molecular weight, economically valuable phenols;
➢ is readily adaptable to the needs of either large scale petroleum refineries or to small, dispersed biorefineries, thus minimizing feedstock hauling costs, utilizing dispersed, otherwise uneconomic feedstock supplies, and making it possible to produce the fuel in close proximity to end-user markets;
➢ reduce by 61% particulate emissions as compared to petroleum diesel, and produce zero emissions of carbon (net), sulfur, or aromatics produced by the burning of petroleum-based diesel.

Stage of Development. This technology has been proven on the bench and tested at pilot plant scale. A Phase I STTR has been successfully completed. The reaction of the monomeric phenols with proteins to form adhesives has been investigated. It has been demonstrated that the “green crude” produced by FCP may be blended with petroleum for refining in conventional petroleum refineries. The process is ready for deployment at demonstration (~125 dry tons → 5,000 gallons “green No. 2” + 40,000 pounds of phenol per day) scale.

Intellectual Property Status. There have been provisional and full patent applications filed relating to this technology: Fractional Catalytic Pyrolysis and Protein Adhesives Production from Biomass, Provisional (U.S.) Patent No. 60/953,266.

Foster A. Agblevor, Ph.D., Inventor. Last year, Foster Agblevor joined the faculty at Utah State as Utah Science Technology and Research (USTAR) Endowed Chair Professor of Biological Engineering. Dr. Agblevor had previously served at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at Golden, Colorado, where he was senior chemical engineer at the Center for Renewable Chemicals and Materials.

Dr. Agblevor earned his doctorate in chemical engineering and applied chemistry at the University of Toronto in 1988, and subsequently completed post-doctoral training at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Since 2001, Dr. Agblevor has published 16 refereed papers, and holds active, provisional, or pending patents on seven inventions, including Fractional Catalytic Pyrolysis. Dr. Agblevor is a member of the American Society of Materials and Testing, and since 2001 has been the Vice-Chairman of the E-48 Committee on Biotechnology. He is also a member American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The U.S. Department of Energy, Virginia Tobacco Commission, the National Fish and Wildlife Federation, the Virginia Poultry Federation, the Shenandoah Resource Conservation and Development Council, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have supported his work on pyrolytic treatment of biomass.


When ~Akira1555 comes up with a response that good, detailed, and complete, he's worthy of your attention. Until then, ignore him. He's just another asshole on the internet.
Reply
:iconchaosimperial:
ChaosImperial Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2012  Hobbyist
Thanks for all the info. Started researching the topics immediately. Great stuff; more info about these things should be out there so people understand that there are alternatives. Like to point out something, though. Not everyone has the benefit of being a PH.D actively working with these issues. As just another net asshole, sometimes its hard to sort the crap from the gold when the subject matter just isn't your field. Our culture (at least in the U.S.) rewards a certain level of specialization. Uninformed doesn't make you an idiot. Someone looking at your post an going TL;DR would be a idiot or a troll. Don't be too hard on Akira1555. Great post, again. Love it. Thanks for sharing your skill, and your information. We all need more stuff like this out there, and to take the next step and actually do something with it.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Thank you. My problem with ~Akira1555 wasn't so much that he was wrong, it was that he used so many straw man arguments and that he presented this crap as scientific fact. My work professionally with this stuff largely centered around taking difficult to understand science and translating it into normal language that the average person can understand at the 12th grade reading level. You're right -- there is a great need for this in the popular media, and that is one of the reasons I have resorted to "poastering." Pictures do a better job of telling the story than words alone, and if one can provoke a serious discussion using humor and satire, even better.
Reply
:iconchaosimperial:
ChaosImperial Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2012  Hobbyist
Then you're doing a fantastic job. I love coming across stuff like this, and it's even better having someone explain their point in detail, instead of just parroting back stuff. Please keep up the good work; I hope this inspires more people to actually think about what they're doing.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Thanks so much. I am in this for the duration. Endless war is destroying our country!
Reply
:icondravazed:
Dravazed Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012
Tweeted
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Thanks for all.
Reply
:icongoldenavatar:
goldenavatar Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012
Finally, someone understands what the problem really is. Now, if we could only convince Arab states to use reasonable portions of what's left of their oil supply to develop fertilizers as part of a broader desert reclamation plan.
Reply
:iconchargrin:
Chargrin Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
People should take charge of their oil consumption or try experimenting in green alternatives. I've seen a delivery truck transformed to use a wood gasifier when there was no gasoline available. I've seen people rig up small cars with home solar panels and the thing could easily zip across town and back. There are many many possibilities that most people just don't seem interested in exploring. The image has been put out that a green vehicle is less "manly", which is complete nonsense. So what if an electric car won't go 120mph or sounds like some cage beast when you start it. When the hell are you ever going to go 120mph? Certainly never on a public street or highway. The obsession with excess should really be stamped out for the good of all of us.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
In a perfect world, yes, Americans would drive more like Europeans and forget the "muscle cars."

That ain't gonna happen.

Moreover, very few people have the interest, skill, or financial ability to create these one of a kind alternatives.

It takes decades to bring about cultural change, and we do not have decades. So, while I agree with the sentiment behind your post, I think that the only way we're going to get what we need is through the existing commercial infrastructure without trying to change America's car culture, and its emphasis on power. And this would be fine if we convert to clean biofuels. Let's deal with the immediate crisis first, and try to change the underlying cultural problems over time.
Reply
:iconchargrin:
Chargrin Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I know. Trust me I know. I have 2 little boys and my husband has a big diesel truck he drives for work so my kids are all sorts of excited when he starts it. All I hear my 2 year old say is " Vroom, vroom!" or when he hears that behemoth pull up to the house " Daddy's home!". I'm trying to teach them how to conserve energy and resource but they are still little boys fascinated by anything big and loud. At least I've got them interested in growing their own food since I let them start a vegetable garden. That's one step in the right direction at least.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
That's the right approach. Good on ya! The attitudes you instill in them now will last a lifetime.

Get your hubby and the kids to watch this with you: [link]

This is just an example of what is possible within the current muscle car culture. Really, everyone will be amazed, and the vehicle involved uses only diesel.
Reply
:iconharmonicsonic:
HarmonicSonic Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I think it's interesting that so many people complain about gas prices, yet very few people are bothering to drive less, car pool, walk or bike to places close by, etc. Then people want us to drill in places like Alaska, which would only give oil syndicates another excuse to raise prices again in a few years when it supposedly starts to run out there. If in addition to trying to find alternatives to oil, we could learn not to be such greedy consumers, we wouldn't keep having so many problems with prices.

(Sorry - I know that's not exactly what your poster is about, but it seemed relevant ^^;)
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Everything you said is very relevant. I worked on biofuels development at a major university for several years, and its clear that the two most important thing we can do to reduce our oil dependence is to encourage conservation through the imposition of a carbon tax, and, to make a real push to develop biofuels from cellulosic sources such as trees and switchgrass. Actually, a way of making "green crude" from trees has already been invented by a guy named Foster Agblevor at Utah State. This stuff can be mixed in with conventional petroleum crude and refined into gasoline and other fractions in existing refineries, but despite successful pilot testing, neither the Federal government nor private investors have been willing to come up with the guaranteed funding to commercialize the technology.

This is because of politics, and politics alone. Reactionaries like the Koch brothers have spent millions to try to convince people that a carbon tax is a bad idea, while the facts show that cap and trade works. For example, in New England, EPA established a cap and trade system to bring down the NOx emissions that are the source of acid rain, and that program has been wildly successful, with even the electric power plant people supporting it. But, when people are told that any carbon tax will double the cost of gasoline (lie) and that it is "socialism" (another lie), progress comes to a screeching halt.

So, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to provide the military security to ship oil from the Middle East, and are now in the process of digging up the Athabascan tar sands in Alberta, Canada, which will, like all other finite resources, run out sooner or later, but at a tremendous environmental cost.

If we treated oil dependence as a real emergency, which it is, and demanded a Manhattan Project to develop renewables, we could replace at least 50% of our crude oil production with clean biofuels within a decade, and create many, many thousands of new jobs in the United States at the same time. We would not need special oil refineries or new pipelines, just the systems that convert biomass (trees, grasses, municipal solid waste, agricultural wastes, etc.) into "green crude" which as I said can be blended with conventional petroleum using existing infrastructure and refineries. Some estimates suggest that as a result the cost of gasoline, diesel, and home heating oil would drop to around $2.00 per gallon, but that wouldn't help the oil companies now, would it?
Reply
:iconharmonicsonic:
HarmonicSonic Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
From what I understand, there is a federal excise on gasoline (about 20 per gallon, I think). Most states have at least some tax in addition to that. The problem is that consumers are being taxed on it, but the companies don't seem to be getting very heavily taxed on the sale of it. It really ought to be more across the board. And I agree that calling it socialism is erroneous. I think that the government having complete control of prices and profit would be a mistake (let's face it - as corrupt as our government is, we wouldn't be any better off), but the laissez-faire attitude that seems to have been adopted is certainly not helping things. We're having some of the same problems now that we had in the early 20th century. When the big companies go unchecked like they did in the 1900s and 1910s (and again today), people get screwed over. (In fact, there might be some poster possibilities in that ;)).

I remember when I was reading up on biofuel back in high school - it came as kind of a slap in the face to me when I read that technically, wood is a biofuel. That was one thing that made me realize that there's no excuse for it not to be a primary source of energy for us. Biofuel literally grows on trees, and we're just letting it go to waste.

I still think, though, that people need to also think more about cutting back on consumption. I remember a few years back when gasoline was up at about $4.00 per gallon. People stopped driving as much. We even seeing fad terms like "stay-cation". When all of that happened, prices did go down, if only temporarily. (They seem to be creeping down again, but I think that's only because this is an election year, and a possible re-election at that). Cutting back and thereby messing with supply and demand might would deliver the wake-up call that the government (or corporations, or whoever) needs to get the ball rolling on alternative energy.

I've also thought that boycotts don't usually work (because for all some people talk about change, the unfortunate bottom line is that people don't want to be inconvenienced), but an easy one, if it could get organized and get going, would be against the gas companies. If people picked one gas company, say ExxonMobil or BP, and didn't go to any stations owned by that company, that would delive a pretty clear message to the other companies that we're tired of the ridiculous prices, and that any one of the other companies could be next. That would have to have some effect, I should think.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Boycotts make people feel good (I won't buy anything made by Koch Industries such as Georgia-Pacific paper for my printer, Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, and
Northern and Angel Soft toilet paper), but 99.99% of consumers don't give crap (heheh) and so boycotts are largely symbolic.

The oil industry, despite its enormous profitability, continues to receive about $4 billion is special Federal tax subsidies each year. Those should be terminated and the money specifically directed ONLY into a Manhattan Project-like effort to bring biofuels on-line in the United States within the next decade, with a goal of replacing at least 50% of the gasoline, diesel, and home heating oil currently refined from petroleum. While $4 billion is a lot of money (enough for example to build 41 biofuels plants in southern and southwestern Virginia capable of replacing 65% of current gasoline and 50% of current diesel and home heating oil consumption in those 34 counties) it is not enough to do the job nationally within 10 years. But, by doing this, the Federal government would send a very clear signal to the private capital markets, and I am convinced that once they realize there is a huge amount of money to be made, Wall Street would scramble for the opportunity to invest in these projects.

Thanks for the idea about "stay-cations." I've actually got some source art that lends itself to this idea, and I will do it as soon as possible and let you know when I post it.

Here's the thing: all of these ideas -- conservation, renewables, a change in culture, etc., are part of the solution. They should all be pursued with vigor, and none of them faulted because they aren't perfect in and of themselves.
Reply
:iconharmonicsonic:
HarmonicSonic Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
The last boycott-ish thing I saw that worked was the bank thing last November. That seemed to have some positive results, if only miniscule ones, but it was a step in the right direction. I only banked locally anyway, so it didn't really apply to me.

Unfortunately, I don't think your solution on prices is going to happen any time soon. As long as the oil is such a widely used commodity, that somehow seems to be giving the corporations license to make as much profit as they want (that refusal to cap prices because of the allegedly socialist implications :roll:). It's sort of a catch-22 - That money going into tax subsidies needs to be going into a biofuel Manhattan Project, but until there's more alternative energy out there (i.e. a biofuel Manhattan Project), that money will keep going to the oil companies. I'm sure you see the never-ending loop there. (There's actually a biofuel station up the road from where I live in southwestern Virginia, by the way).

I saw the poster in my box (I'm in #Occupy-Christianity). Awesome stuff. :) And yeah, that's true - those things are part of the solution, but none are a solution in and of themselves.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Well, yes, Bank Transfer Day did yield some positive results. As I recall, Bank of America saw account closings jump by 20% which they admitted, more or less, was a result of the protest, and apparently, about 600,000 people moved their money out of big banks and into credit unions and community banks nationwide. This was its genius, I guess -- it required only a single act, rather than sustained effort. But, nonetheless, everyone did take notice.

I don't think a biofuels revolution or significant changes in the pump price will happen overnight. It's going to take time. But we've got to start somewhere and sometime, and I think the time is now and the place is here.

Glad you liked the Stay-cation poaster; thanks again for the idea.
Reply
:iconwidget101:
Widget101 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2012  Student Digital Artist
hmmmm, maybe we should just start using our own oil from our own reserves instead of buying it from a war zone...
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
There's not enough from domestic sources.
Reply
:iconwidget101:
Widget101 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2012  Student Digital Artist
I dunno, just thought it might at least help with the extreme prices we have currently
Reply
:iconshadowcharkie:
shadowcharkie Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2012  Student
i remember call of duty.. owo good work
Reply
:iconalexheartnet:
AlexHeartnet Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2012
As much as I enjoy your art, I don't quite see the point of this post.

Are you telling people not to buy gas? I can say from personal experience that not having the ability to drive a car can severely limit both personal and economic freedoms. One shouldn't really fault people for wanting to be able to get around when society expects people to have a car.

If you are protesting against the US military stealing oil, oddly enough I have not actually heard of any cases that involve the US actually stealing oil from the countries they send troops to. But, maybe you know something about that I don't.

I am sure I am just missing something somewhere. Care to enlighten me?
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Here's one place to start: [link]

And here's a picture: [link]

Of course, we could make a major push to develop biofuels in a serious way in this country, which would obviate the need to import any oil at all.

Now, go do your own research.
Reply
:icontheiotragi:
theiotragi Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012
:peace:

Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download PNG 734 × 1097




Details

Submitted on
June 4, 2012
Image Size
1.1 MB
Resolution
734×1097
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,117
Favourites
85 (who?)
Comments
41
Downloads
98
×