Fuel Cell Vehicles to Drive Climate Change

[Wrinkle]

nathanm said:

And Wrinkle, even if oil does somehow 'regenerate' or whatever they call it, it's obviously not happening at a rate that meets demand, although I have yet to see any credible evidence of biotic oil.

Not sure what evidence you base your position upon.
If you mean an existing field should never run 'dry', that's not what is being suggested.

I'd point you to this site which discusses the issue fairly well:

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html

[nathanm]

nathanm said:

Not sure what evidence you base your position upon.
If you mean an existing field should never run 'dry', that's not what is being suggested.

I'd point you to this site which discusses the issue fairly well:

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html

That is exactly what Gold's hypothesis requires. In his system, flow rate of existing fields should eventually decline to whatever rate oil is secreted by bacteria or fairies or whatever. At least IIRC.

That article is not very enlightening as to what Gold (or the Russians) believes the origin of oil is exactly, other than "not rotten dinosaurs" and "geologists are wrong about coal." It does absolutely nothing to advance the hypothesis that oil is in fact renewable on a reasonably short time scale. What's more, it fails to grasp that the origins of oil have little to do with the actual work of a petroleum geologist. For that task, one must understand and identify the rock formations in which commonly trap oil and gas, not where the oil and gas may have come from in the distant past.

As I recall, his theory also requires methane to be much more prevalent than it actually is, but it's probably been 8 or 10 years since I've looked into it after I read an article on his theory in Wired magazine.

We do know fairly certainly that under certain temperature and pressure conditions, organic matter does indeed spontaneously arrange itself into petroleum. Otherwise they wouldn't have been making a few hundred barrels a week of oil from turkey guts up in Carthage.

[sauerkraut]

BTW, just to stir the thread, there's some credible evidence now that oil itself is a renewable source. The old addage of it coming from the remains of dinasours and old vegetation is pretty much history today.

In fact, Russian energy specialists tend adopt a state policy of oil being renewable.

Even if 'Peak Oil' is not a fraud, there's more than likely many, many years of it available yet. As someone else stated, we have more available in North America than Saudi Arabia, most of which remains untapped. I call it the "Use Their's First" policy.

That is correct. There are studies that say oil is made inside the earth by the rubbing of plates together. They have found that once dry oil wells sometimes re-fill up with oil. Let's face it there were no dinasours or veggie by-products 5,000 feet below ground. I think many people like to cover-up and bury this infomation. There are good books on this subject. I believe that oil is made by the earth. Since man first started drilling for oil and using oil we have used up (world wide) about 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil. We have in Colorado & Wyoming 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale rock, that's almost a Trillion barrels right there in our back yard, however, it's all off limits. Then you toss in Alaska, Off Shore Oil, and other domestic oil patchs and we have enough oil to last hundreds of years, then add in 600 years worth of natural gas under the Gulf of Mexico and we don't really need any other form of fuel, but it's always nice to have alternatives, won't hurt to develope everything. BTW, The current oil price is up to $58.00 a barrel and no one can understand why- we have a over supply of oil and refineries are running below capacity, looks like investors want to get back into the oil market.

[swake]

That is correct. There are studies that say oil is made inside the earth by the rubbing of plates together. They have found that once dry oil wells sometimes re-fill up with oil. Let's face it there were no dinasours or veggie by-products 5,000 feet below ground. I think many people like to cover-up and bury this infomation. There are good books on this subject. I believe that oil is made by the earth. Since man first started drilling for oil and using oil we have used up (world wide) about 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil. We have in Colorado & Wyoming 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale rock, that's almost a Trillion barrels right there in our back yard, however, it's all off limits. Then you toss in Alaska, Off Shore Oil, and other domestic oil patchs and we have enough oil to last hundreds of years, then add in 600 years worth of natural gas under the Gulf of Mexico and we don't really need any other form of fuel, but it's always nice to have alternatives, won't hurt to develope everything. BTW, The current oil price is up to $58.00 a barrel and no one can understand why- we have a over supply of oil and refineries are running below capacity, looks like investors want to get back into the oil market.

This is all wingnut internet crap devoid of science. It has it's basis in bad Soviet era Russian science and has been long since discredited. It's about as scientific as Intelligent Design.

[Wrinkle]

Since no one seems to be able to figure out why
today's oil price jumped, I'd offer the following.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0734057320090507

[Wrinkle]

SWAKE said:

This is all wingnut internet crap devoid of science. It has it's basis in bad Soviet era Russian science and has been long since discredited. It's about as scientific as Intelligent Design.

I'd differ with you on this perspective. Any chance you're in the oil industry?

Simply writing it off as quackery is head-n-hole posture.

Any normal person would at least seek the truth by investigation and evaluate based upon actual findings.

[RecycleMichael]

Good catch wrinkled man.

The capacity is 727 million barrels and the current amount in storage is 719 million barrels. Obama wants to top it off with another 8 million barrels.

Oil speculation is the modern day piracy. Oil traders should all be forced to wear eye patches.

[Wrinkle]

Nathanm said:

That is exactly what Gold's hypothesis requires.

Haven't read much of Gold's stuff, but if you extracted that from the link, it doesn't say that.

Frankly, I find the inherent pressures and temps of the Earth's interior creating hydrocarbon fuels a much more rational explanation for oil than the "Peak Oil" argument for the sole reason in that it had to be created from something originially. Add these same characteristics on other planets gives credibility.

...it ain't dinasours.

[Wrinkle]

btw, anyone interested in Natural Gas futures might take note:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3AQ5BEEGy8M&refer=home

IMO, this is the beginning of the artificial upswing in NG prices leading to the year-end (fiscal, June 30, 2009) peak during the time all the winter supply contracts are negotiated.

Thought I'd add that I don't recall NG prices ever being tied to unemployment figures.....even though

"The Energy Department will probably say that gas in storage increased 92 billion cubic feet in the week ended May 1, according to the median of 17 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Estimated gains ranged from a low of 88 billion to a high of 101 billion cubic feet. Supplies in the previous week's report were 23 percent higher than the five-year average."

[Wrinkle]

Back on topic, I find this distressing and confusing:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/national-hydrogen-association-1881/news/article/2009/05/hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-associations-criticize-doe-program-cut;jsessionid=857BEAB8BB8DBBE2C79C3DDE0232790D

[nathanm]

Nathanm said:
Haven't read much of Gold's stuff, but if you extracted that from the link, it doesn't say that.

You're right. The link is worthless fluff. Like the periodic scoops on the latest classified military hardware in Popular Science.

Frankly, I find the inherent pressures and temps of the Earth's interior creating hydrocarbon fuels a much more rational explanation for oil than the "Peak Oil" argument for the sole reason in that it had to be created from something originially. Add these same characteristics on other planets gives credibility.

...it ain't dinasours.

The biotic origin of oil is pretty well proven. That some oil and slightly more methane is spontaneously generated in the mantle does not discredit the theory that most of our oil has its origins in biomatter that was once at the surface or under shallow seas.

[Wrinkle]

nathanm said:

The biotic origin of oil is pretty well proven.

Haven't seen any similar support. Sure, the process can be demonstrated. But, if true, then none of it were here in the billions of years prior to biomatter being available.

OTH, that's the basic debate, I suppose.

It certainly seems easier to accept the process is a part of the overall environment associated with the planets' creation, rather than a by-product of secondary evolution.

[Chicken Little]

You wingnutters can wreck any thread with pseudo-science and conspiracy.  Page 1 looked awfully okay...even intriguing.  Then this.  Are you elementary school drop outs?  Did your parents forbid you from watching Nova when you were growing up?  What is it in your psyche that allows you to so easily believe in magical, underground, rock-rubbing oil?  We've got overwhelming scientific evidence that tells us that fossil fuels are created from just that...fossils.

Fossil fuels are finite, and burning them is bad for the environment.  And so, it's not so much that energy from hydrogen is too expensive (or being withheld), it's that energy from fossil fuels are irrationally cheap.  In the long run, this strategy is a loser; when that day comes, and it may be sooner than you think, the earth will be too hot to ride a bike on. 

A carbon tax could account for the harmful indirect costs of burning fossil fuels.  It could also allow real renewables to catch up, go from lab to market, and ultimately compete head to head with fossil fuels.  But no, that's just evil Dem-e-crats, socialamizing Amerca.  Whatever.

[Wrinkle]

You wingnutters can wreck any thread with pseudo-science and conspiracy.  Page 1 looked awfully okay...even intriguing.  Then this.  Are you elementary school drop outs?  Did your parents forbid you from watching Nova when you were growing up?  What is it in your psyche that allows you to so easily believe in magical, underground, rock-rubbing oil?  We've got overwhelming scientific evidence that tells us that fossil fuels are created from just that...fossils.

Fossil fuels are finite, and burning them is bad for the environment.  And so, it's not so much that energy from hydrogen is too expensive (or being withheld), it's that energy from fossil fuels are irrationally cheap.  In the long run, this strategy is a loser; when that day comes, and it may be sooner than you think, the earth will be too hot to ride a bike on. 

A carbon tax could account for the harmful indirect costs of burning fossil fuels.  It could also allow real renewables to catch up, go from lab to market, and ultimately compete head to head with fossil fuels.  But no, that's just evil Dem-e-crats, socialamizing Amerca.  Whatever.

Saw an interesting piece on Sunday Morning about the Porter Garden telescope and some discussion of Galileo. As we recall, his helioconcentric views got him in real trouble with the establishment.

Some re-evaluation is not only needed, it's demanded by more recent findings. So, if you wish to become critical in this way, you may wish to re-evaluate just who it is which strains this thread.

I doubt there's a soul alive today who doesn't think we should diminish the use of hydrocarbon fuels for simple burning as much as possible. Being a realist also makes me accept that these fuels will be with us for much longer than I can foresee. Besides, they'll always be perfect for use in interesting things (as someone else stated) like plastics. So, it won't be going away, at least for what I presume will be centuries.

We should be unrelenting in deployment of alternate energy sources. However, a Carbon Tax is hardly the way to do it. The carbon tax is an invention of politicians and industry to create a market where none currently exists. It's not a market for new energy, it's a penalty on the use of existing energy. But, most of all, it's designed to produce additional revenue, much on the backs of those least able to afford it. I'd suggest it unnecessary and unneeded. Did I say unwanted?

The Peak Oil debate is real. Political and Industry proponents tell us it's real, though others have suggested it a fraud. That's the debate, not whether a new, burdensome tax is needed.

Obviously, you proclaim to believe in Peak Oil. I'm not so sure, even leaning the other way and your arguments center on my stupidity even though you haven't a clue as to who I am or what my mental capacity may be.

Which of us does that make unreasonable?

[Chicken Little]

Saw an interesting piece on Sunday Morning about the Porter Garden telescope and some discussion of Galileo. As we recall, his helioconcentric views got him in real trouble with the establishment.

Some re-evaluation is not only needed, it's demanded by more recent findings. So, if you wish to become critical in this way, you may wish to re-evaluate just who it is which strains this thread.

I doubt there's a soul alive today who doesn't think we should diminish the use of hydrocarbon fuels for simple burning as much as possible. Being a realist also makes me accept that these fuels will be with us for much longer than I can foresee. Besides, they'll always be perfect for use in interesting things (as someone else stated) like plastics. So, it won't be going away, at least for what I presume will be centuries.

We should be unrelenting in deployment of alternate energy sources. However, a Carbon Tax is hardly the way to do it. The carbon tax is an invention of politicians and industry to create a market where none currently exists. It's not a market for new energy, it's a penalty on the use of existing energy. But, most of all, it's designed to produce additional revenue, much on the backs of those least able to afford it. I'd suggest it unnecessary and unneeded. Did I say unwanted?

The Peak Oil debate is real. Political and Industry proponents tell us it's real, though others have suggested it a fraud. That's the debate, not whether a new, burdensome tax is needed.

Obviously, you proclaim to believe in Peak Oil. I'm not so sure, even leaning the other way and your arguments center on my stupidity even though you haven't a clue as to who I am or what my mental capacity may be.

Which of us does that make unreasonable?

The difference is that Galileo was a scientist and you are just a dude with an inconvenient political agenda.  One which, apparently, allows you to latch onto a bit of wingnut propaganda and, without embarrassment, claim that the subject needs further study.  No, it doesn't.

I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were wingnutty.  You started this thread with a notion that there was some kind of conspiracy against hydrogen.  It's no conspiracy, it's the Bush/Cheney policies on oil and the environment.  They set back the pursuit of renewables by at least a decade.  These crappy policies are what truly need "additional study".  But your idealogy won't let you entertain some pretty straightforward notions, i.e., policy should make it EASY to get the outcomes you want and HARD to get the outcomes you don't want.

I cannot even begin to decifer the wingnut pretzel logic that delivers goofy factoids like oil is renewable,  hydrogen is suppressed by conspirators, and taxation of carbon "isn't necessary" when coal currently produces btu's at 1/3 the cost of solar and and other renewables.  The fact that the dirty aspects of this form of energy production are not accounted for in the math is a reult of previous policy decisions and can be corrected by new policy decisions.  Sorry you don't like government, but the idea of accounting for the real costs of fossil fuels is not a bad one "just 'cause"...