Originally posted by CalJustI believed the same thing until recently, when a friend of mine told me about some of the work of Thomas Gold in this field. (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/)
Really? The name "Hydrocarbons" means made of Carbon and Hydrogen. All HCs contain long chain molecules, alkenes, alkanes, etc etc. And all HCs come from organic material, i.e. previously alive animals/plants.
Crude oil is believed to come from the dinosaurs,and coal from buried forests.
Sure, you can make oils "synthetically". All that means is t ...[text shortened]... ording to a specific formula. But where did the raw materials come from in the first place? 😉
One of his theories is that the biological material in HCs extracted from the earth come from microbes living deep within the crust. (see the abstract for "The Deep Hot Biosphere": http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/DHB.html)
He suggests that there exists a large amount of primordial HCs deep below the surface which well up over time, such that current estimates of HC reserves are well below the true values.
Originally posted by SimbadWell I was referring to the people who drive big four-wheel drive fuel-guzzlers to work by themselves, just to be as economical as they can. I bet we'd have far more fuel left if we didn't have cars that ate so much of it unnecessarily.
I'll remember that next time I've got to get to Sweden for a midday meeting same day 😲
Originally posted by richjohnsonDidn't I refute this theory while we were drunk in Vegas? Was that just the whiskey arguing?
I believed the same thing until recently, when a friend of mine told me about some of the work of Thomas Gold in this field. (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/)
One of his theories is that the biological material in HCs extracted from the earth come from microbes living deep within the crust. (see the abstract for "The Deep Hot Biosphere": http: ...[text shortened]... ch well up over time, such that current estimates of HC reserves are well below the true values.
Originally posted by bbarrI'm sure there's some ethical dilemma involved in our treating these microbes as means to our own ends, but I don't think you refuted the theory. I'm not sure if I believe the primordial hydrocarbon theory, but I've got some questions about the theory that oil comes from decomposed dinosaurs.
Didn't I refute this theory while we were drunk in Vegas? Was that just the whiskey arguing?
For example, consider the following:
"The heavier hydrocarbon molecules have a large variety of isomers (molecules of the same number of hydrogen and carbon atoms, but assembled in different geometrical configurations). The distribution of isomers of aromatic hydrocarbons has been demonstrated to depend upon the temperature range of their formation. Studies of the isomers of 322 oils from various oil fields of the world, have shown that they have a common set of isomers, a set that has been demonstrated to come from a formation temperature of between 700 and 1,100 °C. There is no significant difference in this range between oils coming from different tectonic settings. The overall hydrocarbon composition corresponds to the equilibrium state at temperatures 1,300 to 1,500 °C and pressures of 20 to 40 kb. The estimate is that this is the condition in the upper mantle at depths of 60 to 160 km. Temperatures and pressures in the sedimentary blanket are certainly far from the conditions necessary to account for the isomeric composition characteristic of all natural oils. (This information comes primarily from the publications of two chemists and thermodynamicists from the Ukraine, G.E. Boiko and E.B. Chekaliuk, over the years from 1950 to 1982. Although there is much reference to these publications in the Soviet scientific literature, and I have referred to them in my publications, I have found no other reference to these in the U.S., British, German or French literature.) This universal property of oils thus makes it extremely unlikely that two completely different modes of formation could have been responsible for such complex but similar products; at the same time the temperature range indicated is far too high for a sedimentary origin."
- from http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/origins.html
Originally posted by flexmoreI just saw this on my local news. They featured a plant the makes oil from turkey poo. Really! 😀 The spokesman said they used turkey dung to make an oil that has a lower sulfur content and will burn cleaner. He didn't mention the cost - not doubt it's subsidized by the federal government.
i think the freak from belgium has a point: oil can be produced by other means - but this is meaningless ..... the special thing about oil is that it is so incredibly cheap. to produce long HC chains by awkward and expensive and slow means is of no use to us, except perhaps, to supply low consumption lubricants.
water is cheaper and more available than oil? is anythiing else?
Water cheaper than oil? No way! Have you seen what people will pay for a gallon bottled water?? 😉
Here are some responses:
Flexmore:
For someone who says you are no nuclear specialist, you seem very informed 😉 Pity your profile does not give a more detailed insight into your technical background.
Clearly, I cannot answer your objections in detail. Suffice it to say that the US DOE has selected the PBMR as one of two possibilities for large scale Hydrogen manufacture. It will probably be the next generation nuclear power plant in SA. (At present we have only one French made LWR of 2000 MW).
Belgianfreak:
Yes, theoretically you could combine C and Hs. But my question really was: where, then, do you get the raw materials for THAT?? The C?
Are you going to cut down whole forests to carbonize? Is THAT going to go down well with the environmentalists? 😠:'(😠:'(
Your second point: "all oil products will never exist again once the oil reserves run out". Who ever said THAT? Certainly not I!! Read my first posting: I merely said it was a crime to burn the oil merely for its energy, when other alternatives (such as nuclear) are available. But that mankind with its ingenuity will find means of ravaging the environment merely for fuelling its insatiable demand for consumer products, I have no doubt! 😛
richjohnson:
"large amount of primordial HCs below thesurface"
Sure, there are still plenty of untapped resources, but much more expensive than current oil. For example, the Athabasca oil shales, perhaps 200 years supply.
A previous posting commented on oil reserves: actually, in 1973, with the first oil crisis, the official reserves stood at 23 years. This was unchanged during the second crises in 1979.
😕
Coletti:
"Oil from turkey poo..."
In fact, pig manure makes a much better fuel. During WW2 in Germany it was not uncommon to run motor cars from methane genrated by pig manure. In Oz things are a bit more modern. Many taxis run from Methane obtained from Natural Gas. But to get it from waste products is economically quite viably.
Let me go on the record about my feelings on nuclear: The nuclear industry in the US has been killed by the over-zealous environmental lobby. The US could have been a world leader on this. Same in Germany, that has bowed down to the Greens. The French, instead, have thumbed their noses at this hysteria and quietly gone their way. When was the last nuclear accident in France? Anybody know?
Nuclear is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels with regard to global warming. Renewables (solar, wind, OTEC, geo-thermal, biogas) all play a role and must be encouraged. But the most optimistic estimates by the WEC (World Energy Council) do not put it higher than 10 - 15% in the ultimate energy mix.
you seem to be stuck on the idea that to you can only get hydrocarbons from other hydrocarbons, or that you can only get carbon from living or ex living things. "Carbohydrates" - they sound awfully like "hydocarbons" don't they. Maybe because they are. Carbohydrates literally grow on trees, and in and on the ground. Are the environmentalists going to get upset about harvesting sugar cane?
Belgianfreak:
Yes, theoretically you could combine C and Hs. But my question really was: where, then, do you get the raw materials for THAT?? The C?
Are you going to cut down whole forests to carbonize? Is THAT going to go down well with the environmentalists? 😠:'(😠:'(
Your second point: "all oil products will never exist again once the oil reserves run out". Who ever said THAT? Cert ...[text shortened]... environment merely for fuelling its insatiable demand for consumer products, I have no doubt! 😛
I fail to see how you can tell me that to replace oil we have to use other classical feuls such as trees or coal while in the same thread acknowledging that oil/fuel from manure and microbes is already a fact.
Again, I don't think that we should be burning the oil as we are, I was simply refuting the statement that hydrocarbons cannot be synthesised or created from non-hydrocarbons.
Originally posted by CalJustI appreciate your knowledge in this field, but you are biased about the use of nuclear power.
Let me go on the record about my feelings on nuclear: The nuclear industry in the US has been killed by the over-zealous environmental lobby. The US could have been a world leader on this. Same in Germany, that has bowed down to the Greens. The French, instead, have thumbed their noses at this hysteria and quietly gone their way. When was the last nuclear accident in France? Anybody know?
[/b]
Radioactive clouds don't stop at borders. The Chernobyl (1986) disaster has affected and traumatized almost all of Europe, including France.
It is not fair to regard resistance against nuclear plants as hysterical.
Fjord
Originally posted by CalJustThe main problem as with nuclear is not the risk of accidents, it's the cost, as some one else pointed out think. Nuclear is very very expenisve, even france has stopped building nuclear plants I believe, they are not too bad to run but the decomission costs are astronomical, france has a real problem on this issue. I was going to say even France has stopped building Nuclear powerstations but decided to check my fact, and found this...
Here are some responses:
Flexmore:
For someone who says you are no nuclear specialist, you seem very informed 😉 Pity your profile does not give a more detailed insight into your technical background.
Clearly, I cannot answer your objections in detail. Suffice it to say that the US DOE has selected the PBMR as one of two possibilities for large scale ...[text shortened]... y the WEC (World Energy Council) do not put it higher than 10 - 15% in the ultimate energy mix.
Nuclear power's biggest problems are economic: it is simply no longer competitive with other, newer forms of power generation. The final 20 U.S. reactors cost $3 to $4 billion to build, or some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost $400-$600 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000 per kilowatt.
Even France, which gets more than three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power, now has a moratorium on nuclear plant construction, and other European countries are debating how quickly to shut their plants down. The only countries still building nuclear power plants are nations such as China, Japan, and possibly Iran, where the electric power industry is still a government sanctioned monopoly that is protected from competition
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000089.html
BUT, I also found this, a new report from the last week so it looks like they may have changed their mind...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3177360.stm
Originally posted by belgianfreakI would but it is very difficult to do "hands on meetings" using telecon/videoconference.
couldn't you do it by telecon/videoconference? Not ideal maybe but it would save you time and energy.
Anyway, does anybody realise that the energy used to produce a car far exceeds what the car will burn as fuel in its entire life on the road!!!!!! even the big American guzzlers. That's what it means to be free, you can use up as much as you like with complete disregard for its consequences and the impact on other people/nations.
Originally posted by belgianfreakJust do the sums.
Carbohydrates literally grow on trees, and in and on the ground. Are the environmentalists going to get upset about harvesting sugar cane?
......fuel from manure and microbes is already a fact.
How many trees must you cut down for ONE million barrels of oil per day (mbd)?? Or how many thousands of tons of sugar cane??? Work out the surface area required for such a production of sugar cane.
And then multiply that by only OPEC's production in mbds??
😠 🙁 😠 😕
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustso has your argument has moved from "artificial synthesis of hydrocarbons is impossible" to "artificial synthesis of hydrocarbons as a source of fuel is impractical"? This I could agree with as I never claimed that we will be able to replace oil derived fuels with synthetically created oils. I just refuted your claim that hydrocarbons, whatever their intended use, could not be created from anything except oil/coal/trees. Therefore we will not destroy our only link to plastics/cancer cures/anything else that oil is useful for apart form being a fuel.
Just do the sums.
How many trees must you cut down for ONE million barrels of oil per day (mbd)?? Or how many thousands of tons of sugar cane??? Work out the surface area required for such a production of sugar cane.
And then multiply that by only OPEC's production in mbds??
😠 🙁 😠 😕