[DRAFT] Looking for oilternative solutions

[Freslia]

Massive oil shortages have brought much of @@NATION@@‘s to a grinding halt, in many cases literally. Many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, primarily those mourning the loss of plastic cups and well-oiled hinges, have started to wonder if there’s a better way to obtain this vital chemical than pumping it out of the ground. Your Minister of Resources, returning from the store with paper cups for the water cooler, has taken the liberty of gathering a group of experts, concerned citizens, and wild-eyed crackpots to advise you on the issue.

Option 1: “I don’t see what all the fuss is” Says local chef, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ makes spaghetti on a portable wood-gas stove. “I’ve got plenty of oil back at the restaurant, are you saying it doesn’t count because it isn’t your fancy-smancy ‘petroleum’? It was good enough for our ancestors, and we’re way better than they were.”
Effects: axle grease is proudly labeled “100% whale oil”
Option 2: “Sure, let’s just throw civilization back to the age of steam, that’ll sure go well.” Quips nationally renowned chemist @@RANDOMNAME@@, dissolving @@HIS@@ serving of spaghetti in hydrochloric acid. “Petroleum is vital to our society, and thanks to the magic of SCIENCE we can turn essentially any organic matter into pure, high-quality oil. Thermal depolymerization, Fischer-Tropsch, Sabatier... we can turn raw sewage and garbage into crude oil with only a small investment in chemical equipment and steam generation supplies.”
Effects: “no crud for oil” is a popular environmentalist slogan.
Option 3: “Bah, you call that science!?” Raves eccentric inventor and disgraced academic Doctor @@RANDOMNAME@@, accidentally setting your desk on fire while trying to use @@HIS@@ “Forkomatic 3000” to eat spaghetti. “My latest creation can produce oil from nothing but water and carbon dioxide! Now, there is the... small energy consumption issue, but we can surely find a solution to that little snag.”
Effects: the black goo pouring from power plants is perfectly normal
Option 4: “Let’s not be too hasty,” notes your Minister of Penny-pinching, @@RANDOMNAME@@, who is currently trying to get @@HIS@@ paper spaghetti plate clean. “We’ve got quite a bit of oil—it’s just locked up in cars and machines. Set up rationing programs, advise citizens to wait a bit longer between oil changes, and support the recycling of all oil products.”
Effects: the squeaky wheel often waits months before getting any grease at all

[Australian rePublic]

Issues have to be scientifically possible...

[Freslia]

Issues have to be scientifically possible...

All of these technologies exist in real life...

[Socio Polor]

Be careful as this issue is at the tip of overlapping with Issue #784 and Issue #766. Though, I didn't find any issues that discussed renewable energy the way this one does so you should be alright in continuing it. With that being said, lets take a look at the draft at hand:

First and foremost, try formatting this a bit better something like this-

Title: Looking For Oilternative Solutions

Description: With oil prices reaching an all-time high, many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have started to wonder if there’s a better fuel to use. Your Minister of Resources has taken the liberty of gathering a group of experts, concerned citizens, and wild-eyed crackpots to advise you on the issue.

Option 1: “I’ve been powering my car with biofuel for years now.” Says environmentally-conscious local chef, @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Old cooking oil, alcohol, even some weird algae. It’s renewable, it’s clean, and the exhaust smells like delicious French fries. Bon apetit!”
Effects: leftovers are a major energy resource
Option 2: “Sure, biofuels are great, if you love burning up food.” Quips nationally renowned chemist @@RANDOMNAME@@ “Thanks to the magic of SCIENCE we can turn essentially any organic matter into fuel. Thermal depolymerization, Fischer-Tropsch, Sabatier... we can turn raw sewage and garbage into crude oil with only a small investment in chemical equipment and steam generation supplies.”
Effects: “no crud for oil” is a popular environmentalist slogan.
Option 3: “Bah, you call that science!?” Cries eccentric inventor and disgraced academic Doctor @@RANDOMNAME@@. “My latest creation can produce oil from nothing but water and carbon dioxide! Now, there is the small energy consumption issue, but we can surely find a solution to that little snag.”
Effects: gas cans are advertised as “rechargeable”

Proper formatting makes your draft more easier to read, neater looking and organized.

With oil prices reaching an all-time high,

Why are oil prices so high? Does it have to do with inflation/hyperinflation, fossil fuels running out? If the latter then that won't be much of a problem until decades later assuming gas, oil and coal production rates continue at the pace they are now.

“Sure, biofuels are great, if you love burning up food.” Quips nationally renowned chemist @@RANDOMNAME@@ “Thanks to the magic of SCIENCE we can turn essentially any organic matter into fuel. Thermal depolymerization, Fischer-Tropsch, Sabatier... we can turn raw sewage and garbage into crude oil with only a small investment in chemical equipment and steam generation supplies.”

This looks pretty good

3. “Bah, you call that science!?” Cries eccentric inventor and disgraced academic Doctor @@RANDOMNAME@@. “My latest creation can produce oil from nothing but water and carbon dioxide! Now, there is the small energy consumption issue, but we can surely find a solution to that little snag.”
Effects: gas cans are advertised as “rechargeable”

This is not possible

[Freslia]

Be careful as this issue is at the tip of overlapping with Issue #784 and Issue #766. Though, I didn't find any issues that discussed renewable energy the way this one does so you should be alright in continuing it. With that being said, lets take a look at the draft at hand:

First and foremost, try formatting this a bit better something like this-

Title: Looking For Oilternative Solutions

Description: With oil prices reaching an all-time high, many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have started to wonder if there’s a better fuel to use. Your Minister of Resources has taken the liberty of gathering a group of experts, concerned citizens, and wild-eyed crackpots to advise you on the issue.

Option 1: “I’ve been powering my car with biofuel for years now.” Says environmentally-conscious local chef, @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Old cooking oil, alcohol, even some weird algae. It’s renewable, it’s clean, and the exhaust smells like delicious French fries. Bon apetit!”
Effects: leftovers are a major energy resource
Option 2: “Sure, biofuels are great, if you love burning up food.” Quips nationally renowned chemist @@RANDOMNAME@@ “Thanks to the magic of SCIENCE we can turn essentially any organic matter into fuel. Thermal depolymerization, Fischer-Tropsch, Sabatier... we can turn raw sewage and garbage into crude oil with only a small investment in chemical equipment and steam generation supplies.”
Effects: “no crud for oil” is a popular environmentalist slogan.
Option 3: “Bah, you call that science!?” Cries eccentric inventor and disgraced academic Doctor @@RANDOMNAME@@. “My latest creation can produce oil from nothing but water and carbon dioxide! Now, there is the small energy consumption issue, but we can surely find a solution to that little snag.”
Effects: gas cans are advertised as “rechargeable”

Proper formatting makes your draft more easier to read, neater looking and organized.

Thanks for the advice, I have re-formatted the issue.

With oil prices reaching an all-time high,

Why are oil prices so high? Does it have to do with inflation/hyperinflation, fossil fuels running out? If the latter then that won't be much of a problem until decades later assuming gas, oil and coal production rates continue at the pace they are now.

That’s left to the reader to imagine. It could be hyperinflation, trade embargos, differing levels of oil reserves and oil consumption within the world of NationStates, who knows!

3. “Bah, you call that science!?” Cries eccentric inventor and disgraced academic Doctor @@RANDOMNAME@@. “My latest creation can produce oil from nothing but water and carbon dioxide! Now, there is the small energy consumption issue, but we can surely find a solution to that little snag.”
Effects: gas cans are advertised as “rechargeable”

This is not possible

Once again, it is. The Fischer-Tropsch process can produce liquid hydrocarbon blends suitable for fuel or lubrication from hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Normally, these are produced by the gasification of wood or coal, or the steam reforming of natural gas. However, they can also be produced from water and carbon dioxide by electrolysis (water plus electricity yields hydrogen and oxygen, oxygen is vented) and the reverse water gas shift reaction (hydrogen plus carbon dioxide yields water plus carbon monoxide, water is sent back to electrolysis). This process is highly endothermic (electrolysis is a power hog, RWGS is slightly endothermic) and thus not economical except in isolated locations with lots of power (aircraft carriers, for example) or when oil prices are extremely high and other energy sources are quite cheap.

[Socio Polor]

Are you referring to Synthetic fuels?

[Fauxia]

Is this your first time drfating an issue? If it is, welcome to GI! Now onto the issue here.

The issue is seriously lacking right now. “People wonder if there’s better fuel to use with rising oil prices” doesn’t really cut it, There should be some sort of “inciting incident” or a slightly more detailed description of the rise in oil prices.

The options could use a lot more spice as well.

[Freslia]

Is this your first time drfating an issue? If it is, welcome to GI! Now onto the issue here.

The issue is seriously lacking right now. “People wonder if there’s better fuel to use with rising oil prices” doesn’t really cut it, There should be some sort of “inciting incident” or a slightly more detailed description of the rise in oil prices.

The options could use a lot more spice as well.

I’ve tried to spice up the issue somewhat, although I’m not really sure what you mean by spicing up the options.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Once again, it is. The Fischer-Tropsch process can produce liquid hydrocarbon blends suitable for fuel or lubrication from hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Normally, these are produced by the gasification of wood or coal, or the steam reforming of natural gas. However, they can also be produced from water and carbon dioxide by electrolysis (water plus electricity yields hydrogen and oxygen, oxygen is vented) and the reverse water gas shift reaction (hydrogen plus carbon dioxide yields water plus carbon monoxide, water is sent back to electrolysis). This process is highly endothermic (electrolysis is a power hog, RWGS is slightly endothermic) and thus not economical except in isolated locations with lots of power (aircraft carriers, for example) or when oil prices are extremely high and other energy sources are quite cheap.

So what your'e saying is that it is not practically possible?

I'd suggest losing that last option, and putting in something else.

More broadly, I think you need to set the opening description so that the narrative is clearly just about where to get new oil from, not just alternative energy sources, otherwise people will be asking why there's no option for renewables, nuclear and so on. Or sure, if you're talking about cars, then the big elephant in the room is ELECTRIC CARS, which then brings us back to power generation. You don't want it to be the issue that discusses non-fossil fuel energy sources, as that'd run afoul of overlap with previous issues.

What I suggest is reframing the narrative to talk about how oil is needed for multiple purposes, including fossil fuel electricity generation, the creation of plastics and other synthetic materials, and industrial lubrication, and to use that argument to frame a presentation of a list of options for alternatives to traditional crude oil for those purposes. I'd deemphasises transport, and instead make it clear that much of modern society uses oil for many purposes beyond burning it.

Also, it's good that your approach is scientifically literate and well-researched, but I'd suggest making the issue less dry and technical, and making it more human.

[Freslia]

Once again, it is. The Fischer-Tropsch process can produce liquid hydrocarbon blends suitable for fuel or lubrication from hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Normally, these are produced by the gasification of wood or coal, or the steam reforming of natural gas. However, they can also be produced from water and carbon dioxide by electrolysis (water plus electricity yields hydrogen and oxygen, oxygen is vented) and the reverse water gas shift reaction (hydrogen plus carbon dioxide yields water plus carbon monoxide, water is sent back to electrolysis). This process is highly endothermic (electrolysis is a power hog, RWGS is slightly endothermic) and thus not economical except in isolated locations with lots of power (aircraft carriers, for example) or when oil prices are extremely high and other energy sources are quite cheap.

So what your'e saying is that it is not practically possible?

I'd suggest losing that last option, and putting in something else.

More broadly, I think you need to set the opening description so that the narrative is clearly just about where to get new oil from, not just alternative energy sources, otherwise people will be asking why there's no option for renewables, nuclear and so on. Or sure, if you're talking about cars, then the big elephant in the room is ELECTRIC CARS, which then brings us back to power generation. You don't want it to be the issue that discusses non-fossil fuel energy sources, as that'd run afoul of overlap with previous issues.

What I suggest is reframing the narrative to talk about how oil is needed for multiple purposes, including fossil fuel electricity generation, the creation of plastics and other synthetic materials, and industrial lubrication, and to use that argument to frame a presentation of a list of options for alternatives to traditional crude oil for those purposes. I'd deemphasises transport, and instead make it clear that much of modern society uses oil for many purposes beyond burning it.

Also, it's good that your approach is scientifically literate and well-researched, but I'd suggest making the issue less dry and technical, and making it more human.

The third is already meant to be the “crazy” option, but it’s not that far off from real life; the navy is exploring the process for use on aircraft carriers, where power is abundant but oil must be shipped in.

The idea of applying it to non-transportation applications is very good, though, I’ll take that advice.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

As to making it more human, to clarify what I mean is that it shouldn't be three scientists discussing three different scientific approaches. Rather, there should be one or two science-based approach at most, and options covering the different ways a government might respond to a given situation, not just different methods for oil production. For example, finding ways to reduce the demand for / use of oil, or instituting more recycling of oil waste, or stuff like that.

[Freslia]

As to making it more human, to clarify what I mean is that it shouldn't be three scientists discussing three different scientific approaches. Rather, there should be one or two science-based approach at most, and options covering the different ways a government might respond to a given situation, not just different methods for oil production. For example, finding ways to reduce the demand for / use of oil, or instituting more recycling of oil waste, or stuff like that.

I’ve rephrased option one as less of a scientific solution and added a fourth option.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Yeah, I like it. There's some editing things to do, like decapitalisations, slight phrasing changes, and so on. However it's certainly at a pass standard.

[Freslia]

Yeah, I like it. There's some editing things to do, like decapitalisations, slight phrasing changes, and so on. However it's certainly at a pass standard.

Huzzah! I’ll submit it now.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hold off a bit. Give it at least 2 weeks in draft.

[Candensia]

Massive oil shortages have brought much of @@NATION@@‘s to a grinding halt, in many cases literally. Many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, primarily those mourning the loss of plastic cups and well-oiled hinges, have started to wonder if there’s a better way to obtain this vital chemical than pumping it out of the ground. Your Minister of Resources, returning from the store with paper cups for the water cooler, has taken the liberty of gathering a group of experts, concerned citizens, and wild-eyed crackpots to advise you on the issue.

Your description could use a bit of cleaning up. So I'll crack out some scissors and glue.

Massive oil shortages have brought much of @@NAME@@ to a grinding halt, in some cases literally. Many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, especially those mourning the loss of plastic cups and well-oiled hinges, have started to wonder if there are better ways to obtain the vital resource- other than pumping it out of the ground. Your Minister of Resources, returning from the store with paper cups for the water cooler, has taken the liberty of gathering a group of experts, concerned citizens, and wild-eyed crackpots to advise you on the issue.

There's my take. Personally, I think you could go without that last sentence. (I highlighted it) It doesn't really add much.

“100% whale oil”

“no crud for oil”

“Forkomatic 3000”

Remember to use single quotes around any non-speech. Like 'this'.

Effects: “no crud for oil” is a popular environmentalist slogan.

Take that period out back and shoot it.

I'll be back to help you polish those options.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I notice you've submitted this.

I've deleted it for now, not on the basis of quality, but because you really will benefit from drafting it for longer. Get more community feedback, and it'll be better for it.

[Candensia]

I'm back. I'll help you polish grammar, formatting and punctuation. I think I might offer you some wording tweaks, too!

My changes are in this color.

Option 1: "I don't see what all the fuss is," says local chef, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ makes spaghetti on a portable wood-gas stove. "I've got plenty of cooking oil back at the restaurant. It might not be fancy-smancy petroleum, but that's no reason to count it out! It works just as well, and was good enough for our ancestors after all."

Effects: axle grease is proudly labeled '100% whale oil'

The hand was the heaviest here, as some portions I felt were unclear. If you just want the spelling and punctuation fixes, refer to this instead.

Option 1: "I don't see what all the fuss is," says local chef, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ makes spaghetti on a portable wood-gas stove. "I've got plenty of oil back at the restaurant, are you saying it doesn't count because it isn't your fancy-smancy petroleum? It was good enough for our ancestors, and we're way better than they were."

Effects: axle grease is proudly labeled '100% whale oil'

Now onto the other options.

Option 2: "Sure, let's just throw civilization back to the age of steam, that’ll sure go well," quips nationally renowned chemist @@RANDOMNAME@@, dissolving @@HIS@@ serving of spaghetti in hydrochloric acid. "Petroleum is vital to our society, and thanks to the magic of science we can turn essentially any piece of organic matter into pure, high-quality oil. Thermal depolymerization, Fischer-Tropsch, Sabatier: we can turn brown sewage and garbage into black gold with only a small investment into chemical equipment and steam generation supplies."

Effects: "no crud for crude" is a popular environmentalist slogan


Option 3: "Bah, you call that science?" raves eccentric inventor and disgraced academic Dr. @@RANDOMNAME@@, accidentally setting your desk on fire while trying to use @@HIS@@ 'Forkomatic 3000' to eat spaghetti. "My latest creation can produce oil out of nothing but water and carbon dioxide! Now, there is the... small energy consumption issue, but we can surely find a solution to that little snag."

Effects: the black goo pouring from power plants is perfectly normal


Option 4: "Let's not be too hasty," notes your Minister of Penny-pinching, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while simultaneously scrubbing spaghetti off used paper plates. "We've got quite a bit of oil—it's just locked up in cars and machines. Set up rationing programs, advise citizens to wait a bit longer between oil changes, and support the recycling of all oil products."

Effects: the squeaky wheel often waits months before getting any grease at all

Regarding option four, be careful about mentioning cars, as they can be banned in some nations. You may want to consider tacking on a validity, creating a doppelganger option, or simply cutting out explicit references to automobiles.

Most of my changes were punctuation related. I did change a few wordings, and it is of course your decision whether to use them or not.

Good luck!

[Freslia]

I'm back. I'll help you polish grammar, formatting and punctuation. I think I might offer you some wording tweaks, too!

My changes are in this color.

Option 1: "I don't see what all the fuss is," says local chef, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ makes spaghetti on a portable wood-gas stove. "I've got plenty of cooking oil back at the restaurant. It might not be fancy-smancy petroleum, but that's no reason to count it out! It works just as well, and was good enough for our ancestors after all."

Effects: axle grease is proudly labeled '100% whale oil'

The hand was the heaviest here, as some portions I felt were unclear. If you just want the spelling and punctuation fixes, refer to this instead.

Option 1: "I don't see what all the fuss is," says local chef, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ makes spaghetti on a portable wood-gas stove. "I've got plenty of oil back at the restaurant, are you saying it doesn't count because it isn't your fancy-smancy petroleum? It was good enough for our ancestors, and we're way better than they were."

Effects: axle grease is proudly labeled '100% whale oil'

Now onto the other options.

Option 2: "Sure, let's just throw civilization back to the age of steam, that’ll sure go well," quips nationally renowned chemist @@RANDOMNAME@@, dissolving @@HIS@@ serving of spaghetti in hydrochloric acid. "Petroleum is vital to our society, and thanks to the magic of science we can turn essentially any piece of organic matter into pure, high-quality oil. Thermal depolymerization, Fischer-Tropsch, Sabatier: we can turn brown sewage and garbage into black gold with only a small investment into chemical equipment and steam generation supplies."

Effects: "no crud for crude" is a popular environmentalist slogan


Option 3: "Bah, you call that science?" raves eccentric inventor and disgraced academic Dr. @@RANDOMNAME@@, accidentally setting your desk on fire while trying to use @@HIS@@ 'Forkomatic 3000' to eat spaghetti. "My latest creation can produce oil out of nothing but water and carbon dioxide! Now, there is the... small energy consumption issue, but we can surely find a solution to that little snag."

Effects: the black goo pouring from power plants is perfectly normal


Option 4: "Let's not be too hasty," notes your Minister of Penny-pinching, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while simultaneously scrubbing spaghetti off used paper plates. "We've got quite a bit of oil—it's just locked up in cars and machines. Set up rationing programs, advise citizens to wait a bit longer between oil changes, and support the recycling of all oil products."

Effects: the squeaky wheel often waits months before getting any grease at all

Regarding option four, be careful about mentioning cars, as they can be banned in some nations. You may want to consider tacking on a validity, creating a doppelganger option, or simply cutting out explicit references to automobiles.

Most of my changes were punctuation related. I did change a few wordings, and it is of course your decision whether to use them or not.

Good luck!

Thank you so much! I’ll try resubmitting in a couple days.