Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Wondering whether burning fossil fuel causes global warming, or NOT, is like wondering whether the hammer will break while you're beating yourself on the head with it...

excon

---

You see, EX, I don't wonder about such things, evidence I have seen puts the matter in no doubt, it's all smoke and mirrors, and I know the only hammers that break are made in China. I see no point in replacing one "polluting" industry with another and no point in trying to change the weather

The wonder is that there are so many guillible people in the world

Hello again, clete:

You miss my point entirely... Don't worry. You're not alone.

My POINT is, that we're running OUT of oil. So worrying about the damage burning it causes, is ACADEMIC. We're going to have to find another source of energy, whether CO2 pollutes, whether global warming is bad, whether the science is humbug...

ALL of THAT is mental masturbation...

But, if the science isn't humbug, then we're going to solve TWO problems at once. What's the matter with that?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, if the science isn't humbug, then we're going to solve TWO problems at once. What's the matter with that?

excon

---

Ex I don't mind solving two problems at once but what we are doing isn't WIN, WIN The Wind technology is very dependent on rare earths and these have to be refined, the Solar technology is dependent on Silicon a very polluting industry. Hybrid motor technology is at least at the moment dependent on oil, the electric car industry is dependent on Lithium both rare and polluting to extract, and still dependent on existing base load power stations, so what we have now is what I said before; smoke and mirrors.

I know that one day we will have to deal with the problem of oil supply but it needs a different approach, not only to power generation but also to transport and growth in transport usage. We are going to have to face it, there are too many people on the Earth

There is a growing hypothesis about oil that questions the premise that oil is an organic substance ,the final byproduct of decay.

There is growing evidence that suggests oil is the byproduct of a renewable natural organic and inorganic process occurring deep between the mantle and the crust of the earth.

Dimitri Mendeleev ,the creator of the modern periodic table ,and Dr. Thomas Gold... founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research and author of "The Deep Hot Biosphere" ,are proponents of this hypothesis.

Dr. J.F. Kenney a geological scientist and 3 Russian co-authors wrote a paper entitled "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." that explains the process.
The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen?carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum ? PNAS
I won't get into the details ;but if this is true ,then the theory that there is a finite supply of oil is wrong. The evidence already suggests that wells everyone thought were exhausted are renewing themselves.
One example is in the Gulf of Mexico near Eugene Island. The well there was pumping 15,000 barrels a day with a reserve of 60 million bb . It slowed down to about 4,000 bb/day and everyone thought it was depleted .But a decade later it was back to 15,000 bb/day and the new estimates of the reserve from that well is 400 million bb.

This was also found to be the case in Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska ,and in Uzbekistan fields . Most Middle East reserves have been recalculated .

I'm not saying that we don't need to find alternatives to petroleum based energy . But the need to switch may not be urgent based on dwindling supply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is a growing hypothesis about oil that questions the premise that oil is an organic substance ,the final byproduct of decay.

There is growing evidence that suggests oil is the byproduct of a renewable natural organic and inorganic process occuring deep between the mantle and the crust of the earth.


I'm not saying that we don't need to find alternatives to petroleum based energy . But the need to switch may not be urgent based on dwindling supply.

---

Tom I am aware of the hypothesis but I think recent experiences in the Gulf suggest that whatever the resourse our ability to extract it might be limited and so limit the availability if demand continues to grow and in any case the resource may not be limitless whatever the process may be. We don't only have problems with the raw resource we have problems with refining capacity and the ability to transport it safely so the day of the internal combustion engine may be coming to a close. We will go through the cycle of replacing oil with gas and even electric vehicles but inevitably we need some very different thinking to get us away from the oil cycle just as we did to get us away from the horse cycle.

And that will come. No one expected the Edison light bulb would replace whale oil lamps. But it happened ,because it was practical.
I don't believe that public policy said "we need to replace whale oil with the theoretical possibility of electric circuits. Governments cannot force innovation to happen .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is growing evidence that suggests oil is the byproduct of a renewable natural organic and inorganic process occuring deep between the mantle and the crust of the earth..

---

Hello again, tom:

I was watching "The Universe" the other day. They were talking about some new planet that was very inhospitable to humans. They said the rivers on this planet were made up of natural gas...

It got me to thinking... If there was NEVER any organic matter on that planet, where did natural gas come from?? Your scientists might be on to something...

Ain't science great?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But the need to switch may not be urgent based on dwindling supply.

---

But that bucks the narrative of the greens so that won't do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and that will come. No one expected the Edison light bulb would replace whale oil lamps. But it happened ,because it was practical.
I don't believe that public policy said "we need to replace whale oil with the theoretical possibilty of electric circuits. Governments cannot force innovation to happen .

---

No one expected to replace the edison bulb so quickly either. And if Edison had his way it wouldn't have. Sometimes push and shove has to happen to make progress. We are at that same turning point now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

I was watching "The Universe" the other day. They were talking about some new planet that was very inhospitable to humans. They said the rivers on this planet were made up of natural gas.....

It got me to thinkin... If there was NEVER any organic matter on that planet, where did natural gas come from??? Your scientists might be on to something...

Ain't science great??

excon

---

The principle component of natural gas is methane and methane is abundent in out universe.

Ref:

Chemical of the Week -- Methane

Quote:

---

No one expected to replace the edison bulb so quickly either. And if Edison had his way it wouldn't have. Sometimes push and shove has to happen to make progress. We are at that same turning point now.

---

One thing I know for sure is that nobody is working harder to make a breakthrough in the next generation energies than the energy companies.
I don't believe in subsidies for them for either oil exploration or for alternate energy discovery . I just don't think it a wise use of taxpayer's money whether it is a direct payout ;or some other back door scheme like cap and tax . I remind all that one of the early proponents of cap and trade and carbon trading was the corrupt energy giant Enron Corp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

One thing I know for sure is that nobody is working harder to make a breakthrough in the next generation energies than the energy companies.
I don't believe in subsidies for them for either oil exploration or for alternate energy discovery . I just don't think it a wise use of taxpayer's money whether it is a direct payout ;or some other back door scheme like cap and tax . I remind all that one of the early proponents of cap and trade and carbon trading was the corrupt energy giant Enron Corp.

---

If I read you correctly we shouldn't do it because someone might make some money out of it. Look methane is a prevelent substance just like hydrogen I suspect where you have hydrogen and oxygen you might have water so maybe it's possible where you have hydrogen and methane you might have oil but how does this help, business as usual isn't going to be the long run outcome