OT: Sustainable oil
Rob Dekker
year, which offers an outlook to a world with plenty of oil for many many generations to come.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
Does anyone know more about this ?
Rob
Mike Williams
Creationists often suggest the idea that oil is created through
inorganic processes. The standard theory that oil is produced from
decomposed organic matter takes a long time, and doesn't fit in with a
young earth theology.
You should be able to spot the fact that World Net Daily has a religious
bias, and if you search their site for "evolution" you'll see that they
are against it. Googling [site:www.worldnetdaily.com evolution] finds
400 pages that are clearly anti-evolutionist. For an extreme example see
"How Satan and Darwin undermined the church"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37227
A quick Google suggests that Dr. Thomas Gold is generally considered not
to be a total crank, and that some of his previous radical ideas have
proved to be valid. However, most non-creationist geologists reckon that
he's completely wrong with this one.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Jonathan Silverlight
<nos...@econym.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>A quick Google suggests that Dr. Thomas Gold is generally considered not
>to be a total crank, and that some of his previous radical ideas have
>proved to be valid.
That's definitely an understatement, but his record is so good that
mistakes like believing that the Moon is covered with a thick layer of
dust don't really hurt it.
>You should be able to spot the fact that World Net Daily has a
>religious
>bias, and if you search their site for "evolution" you'll see that they
>are against it. Googling [site:www.worldnetdaily.com evolution] finds
>400 pages that are clearly anti-evolutionist.
Creationists hijack theories for their own ends. There's a nice example
at <http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml>, where they are using the
ideas of Joao Magueijo and others to support the idea that the speed of
light has changed in the last 300 years.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
Rob Dekker
I have no idea why creationists often seem to find the most improbably
solutions to counteract scientific findings. Why not just say that God
created oil for humans to use as part of word on day 3 (or was it 4), rather
than to find a way to make oil from inorganic materials without any proof of
that being even possible. Would be so much easier.
There still seems to be still some hope for in-organic oil, as is shown by
the pretty trustworthy Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
It seems to come from oil-making bacteria. So actually not quite that
in-organic. I found additional info on that (via some other links) that oil
has been found in 3 billion year old rocks, created by early earth microbes.
Most of that old oil (whatever is still left of it) seems to be dispersed in
microscopically small droplets in the rocks.
No large quantities that can be harvested as far as we know.
So, it is back to finding a solution for sustained fusion in the next 100
years.
I'm teaching my daughter the basics of the problems right now :o)
She is 2 years old, and might experience the final breakdown of fossil fuel
supplies in her lifetime.
Depending on how fast we burn the stuff....
I have often wondered why western leaders do not seem to invest much into
fusion.
Even current fusion projects are government funded because they provide an
alternative for nuclear bomb testing, not because they might offer a
solution for the long-term inevitable global energy crisis.
The US seems to be interested in actually speeding-up the process by
focusing on free flow of cheap oil in the short run so that the Hummers can
keep on driving; without any attempt to save for future generations.
Europe's attitude towards saving energy and experimenting with alternative
energy (wind, solar, bio) makes more sense, and should buy at least some
time, but proving 300 Exa Joule (300*10^18J) per year (estimate of current
global fossil energy usage) with some windmills and solar panels is going to
be any where from extremely unlikely to outright impossible.
Just needed to get that off my chest.
Rob
Alfred A. Aburto Jr.
> Thanks guys !
>
> I have no idea why creationists often seem to find the most improbably
> solutions to counteract scientific findings. Why not just say that God
> created oil for humans to use as part of word on day 3 (or was it 4), rather
> than to find a way to make oil from inorganic materials without any proof of
> that being even possible. Would be so much easier.
Dispite the creationist angle, I think that Thomas Gold's ideas still
hold merit.
Years ago I remember reading in, I seem to remember, Scientific American
about the organisms found deep within the Earth. I was impressed by the
fact that most of the biomass of the Earth is found not on the surface
of the planet and not within the oceans, but within the Earths crust and
upper mantle! Microorganisms have been found thriving within the Earth
down to a kilometer of depth (as I remember). This was amazing to me,
because it says that one could wipe out all life on the surface,
evaporate the oceans and still, life would thrive on Earth. Pretty
amazing. About the only way to kill all life on Earth would be to have
the Sun swallow it up (this will happen of course, but not for another 5
billions years or so).
It is possible that this vast living and dying biomass deep within the
Earth does cause "oil" to perculate to the shallower depths and form
pockets of oil. I don't think this theory has been completely dismissed.
>
> There still seems to be still some hope for in-organic oil, as is shown by
> the pretty trustworthy Wikipedia :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
> It seems to come from oil-making bacteria. So actually not quite that
> in-organic. I found additional info on that (via some other links) that oil
> has been found in 3 billion year old rocks, created by early earth microbes.
> Most of that old oil (whatever is still left of it) seems to be dispersed in
> microscopically small droplets in the rocks.
> No large quantities that can be harvested as far as we know.
>
> So, it is back to finding a solution for sustained fusion in the next 100
> years.
>
> I'm teaching my daughter the basics of the problems right now :o)
> She is 2 years old, and might experience the final breakdown of fossil fuel
> supplies in her lifetime.
> Depending on how fast we burn the stuff....
>
> I have often wondered why western leaders do not seem to invest much into
> fusion.
I remember a $5 billion effort (over 10 years I think) to create laser
"sustained" fusion at the University of California at Berkeley. A
friend, a physicist, many years ago (1970's) quit the military research
work he was doing and went to Berkeley to try to make laser fusion work.
As far as I know it has not worked successfully. There have been other
long term efforts using "magnetic bottles" (holding high temperature and
pressure hydrogen gas) but they have also been unsuccessful. I think
some effort has been put into the problem but so far all has failed!
> Even current fusion projects are government funded because they provide an
> alternative for nuclear bomb testing, not because they might offer a
> solution for the long-term inevitable global energy crisis.
>
> The US seems to be interested in actually speeding-up the process by
> focusing on free flow of cheap oil in the short run so that the Hummers can
> keep on driving; without any attempt to save for future generations.
> Europe's attitude towards saving energy and experimenting with alternative
> energy (wind, solar, bio) makes more sense, and should buy at least some
> time, but proving 300 Exa Joule (300*10^18J) per year (estimate of current
> global fossil energy usage) with some windmills and solar panels is going to
> be any where from extremely unlikely to outright impossible.
Windmill farms are being suggested for Kansas, but local folks are
protesting because it "degrades" the beauty of the countryside and the
big blades can kill birds. Go figure!
Also, Americans go for not only the Hummer's, but the large vehicles,
SUV's, F150's, F250's, 2500's, on and on, that get very poor gas mileage
in general. The US consumes I think about 30% of the worlds resources
... who the heck wants a wimpy Toyota with 50MPG when a monster truck is
available at 15MPG? :-)
Martin 53N 1W
[... Fusion poer ...]
> long term efforts using "magnetic bottles" (holding high temperature and
> pressure hydrogen gas) but they have also been unsuccessful. I think
> some effort has been put into the problem but so far all has failed!
The JET fusion test reactor in the UK has been very successful and has
shown that magnetically contained fusion works. The next step is a
project called ITER to build a minimum sized self-sustained fusion
reactor to generate power.
>> Even current fusion projects are government funded because they
Yes. It is 'big' long term science.
>> provide an
>> alternative for nuclear bomb testing, not because they might offer a
>> solution for the long-term inevitable global energy crisis.
Wrong. Fusion is very different from fission and very different
materials are used.
Nuclear science is advanced and that new _knowledge_ may indirectly be
used for other purposes.
[...]
> Windmill farms are being suggested for Kansas, but local folks are
> protesting because it "degrades" the beauty of the countryside and the
> big blades can kill birds. Go figure!
Yes, and they are also costly. Tidal turbine farms are a much better and
effective idea with x4 the power generated for a given blade area.
The only 'successful' wind farm area I know of is for the Canary
Islands. They have very special circumstances of the trade winds, no
fossil fuel resource, and a lucrative tourist trade that needs lots of
desalinated water. (Their main wind farm looks very ugly.)
[...]
Americans have a power-hungry lifestyle full stop.
Regards,
Martin
--
---------- OS? What's that?!
- Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3
Rob Dekker
"Martin 53N 1W" <ml_...@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote in message
news:CESDd.163$KH1...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
> [... Fusion poer ...]
> > long term efforts using "magnetic bottles" (holding high temperature and
> > pressure hydrogen gas) but they have also been unsuccessful. I think
> > some effort has been put into the problem but so far all has failed!
>
> The JET fusion test reactor in the UK has been very successful and has
> shown that magnetically contained fusion works. The next step is a
> project called ITER to build a minimum sized self-sustained fusion
> reactor to generate power.
>
Yeah. If they would finally build it...
Martin, I share your excitement about fusion and the prospects of
us finally getting rid of this horrible fossil fuel junk. Really I do.
I have even considered devoting my life to fusion research at some point.
Then I somehow decided I could probably contribute better to the
overall well-being of man by writing the best software for hardware design.
But that's another story.
But really, the process takes forever. And nothing gets done.
Even the web site http://www.iter.org is a disaster.
It almost outlines how in-decisive ITER has become (that rimes!)
Sub-group and sub-committees all talking for years about where to
build it. I get really annoyed with this. What are they waiting for ?
Flip a coin, throw a dart, whatever. Really. Just decide, and just get going
!!
This is what I mean.
I am very surprised that there is so little investment into fusion.
>
> >> Even current fusion projects are government funded because they
>
> Yes. It is 'big' long term science.
>
> >> provide an
> >> alternative for nuclear bomb testing, not because they might offer a
> >> solution for the long-term inevitable global energy crisis.
>
> Wrong. Fusion is very different from fission and very different
> materials are used.
I actually meant the only current, active fusion laboratory that I know of :
Lawrence Livermore Lab's. Just around the corner from where I live.
Shed in secrecy, since that fusion lab is used (and funded) to simulate
nuclear weapon testing. It is also a interesting from a
'lets-solve-the-energy-problem-for-the-world' perspective, but that is
clearly a second order priority for the guys in Livermore.
It's a laser based system.
Good for me ! Just get going, make it work !
Tokamak, laser, anything is good, as long as we invest in fusion and work
on it. Because somehow, someday fossil fuel will finally match the
price of gold (as opposed to the price of bottled water today).
Oh. And yeah. We also solve our dependency on Middle-East oil...
Is that worth something ? Mmmmmm. Probably.....
> [...]
> > Windmill farms are being suggested for Kansas, but local folks are
> > protesting because it "degrades" the beauty of the countryside and the
> > big blades can kill birds. Go figure!
>
> Yes, and they are also costly. Tidal turbine farms are a much better and
> effective idea with x4 the power generated for a given blade area.
I did not know that.
I thought that tidal turbine farms suffer from the same problem that
wave turbines suffer from : not enough 'height' difference to become
efficient.
Do you know of any tidal turbine experiment or farm that is successfull ?
>
> The only 'successful' wind farm area I know of is for the Canary
> Islands. They have very special circumstances of the trade winds, no
> fossil fuel resource, and a lucrative tourist trade that needs lots of
> desalinated water. (Their main wind farm looks very ugly.)
I was born and rased in the lowlands of Holland, so I do have an affection
with windmills. But I must say that these new modern ones look really
dangerous (the blades run really fast). And I have enough common
sense to know that they can never solve the world energy problem
by themselves.
>
>
> [...]
> Americans have a power-hungry lifestyle full stop.
>
Right, but you know what ? It's not just born-Americans.
It's also American immigrants (like me...duh). It almost seems that
once you arrive in the big US of A, that all prior rules and regulations
do no longer apply. I have seen Ethiopians throwing food away
plus the preference for paper/plastic utensils (so they don't have
to do the dishes), Brazilian friends defending slash/burn tacktics
in the Amazon, and even we as Dutch in the US : I have more living
space now than ever in Holland (always shared housing there),
but it is not even 1/4th as well temperature insolated as any
place I lived in Holland. (Low energy usage (in a wet/cold climate)
is something the Dutch finds pride in. Among other things.).
Somehow, the US changes your perspective. Maybe it is still the
land where everything is possible. So forget what you learned,
and start all over again. I'm not sure what it is, but what IS clear is
that the US, after all, is BY FAR the highest energy user.
Per capita or per anything.
Rob