| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hanson" |
| Date: |
13 Feb 2005 09:01:08 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
"James" <jrapier@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:420ecf64$1_1@news.iglou.com...
Are we really running out of oil? (Filed: 12/02/2005)
If global consumption keeps running at 28 billion barrels a year,
the USGS says that it will take until 2036 for the world to have
used half the total. By then, new technologies will almost
certainly have turned up more viable reserves. Already, the
Russians think the Americans are too pessimistic, putting the
total at 11,000 billion barrels. As Deutsche Bank, says:
"Only God [1] knows how much oil and gas there is and that
has not been revealed yet in any of the scriptures."
There is as much oil in the tar sands in Canada as in Saudi
Arabia, - it is just harder [and much more expensive] to get out.
But if you put the price up then, by golly, you will have it."
But if the oil and gas is in abundance, why are reserve
replacement rates so low? The answer lies in the rules governing
reserves' disclosure, laid down by the US regulator, the SEC
nearly 30 years ago. Under these regulations, which were originally
set up so America could be certain of its oil and gas supplies in
a shortage, companies can only record "proven" barrels of which
they are 90pc certain. Brinded, Shell's head of exploration and
production, says: "We reduced proven reserves from 164m barrels
to zero even though production continues and we see potential
for producing over one billion barrels of oil in the long term."
As Derek Butter says: "The simple question is 'Are the oil and
gas companies running out of reserves?' The answer is plainly 'no'."
[hanson]
[1] There is no need to call on God to estimate how much fossil
carbon there is on earth. Chemistry 101 will show that easily: From
my post: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:20:54, in sci. environment:
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
Carbonates. Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into
the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
O2. So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4) .
Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C
in store. So, at a current use of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil
stuff will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr/3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!.
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
So, the cherished, dooms-day of now or tomorrow as predicted by
green shits, enviro turds and all the little green idiots will not arrive
till after global warming is over and/or the next Ice age is gone.
Greenies are of course in total denial over this obvious result because
it will disturb their agenda to get graft from their extortions via permit
charges, user fees, enviro surtaxes and the carbon tax, which also
shows that environmentalism is only a pure money game using "enviro"
as their gimmick. Similarily, the oil producers, as explained above, are
equally happy with the official uncertainty about the reserves, since
it allows them to milk the oil beast for max profit. And like enviros, the
oil boys too are of course in their biz for the sake of money also. It's
about money! It's ALL about money, and money is GREEN & SLIPPERY!
Not that there is anything wrong with either. So, expect the fight to last.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
| User: "anon" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 07:52:31 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UYJPd.548$W%5.435@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
they are 90pc certain. Brinded, Shell's head of exploration and
production, says: "We reduced proven reserves from 164m barrels
to zero even though production continues and we see potential
for producing over one billion barrels of oil in the long term."
As Derek Butter says: "The simple question is 'Are the oil and
gas companies running out of reserves?' The answer is plainly 'no'."
[hanson]
[1] There is no need to call on God to estimate how much fossil
carbon there is on earth. Chemistry 101 will show that easily: From
my post: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:20:54, in sci. environment:
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
.......
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
16 Feb 2005 04:32:55 AM |
|
|
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
The oil companies would love it though; they could sell bottles of
Oxygen as well when you filled up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 08:03:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics anon <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UYJPd.548$W%5.435@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
they are 90pc certain. Brinded, Shell's head of exploration and
production, says: "We reduced proven reserves from 164m barrels
to zero even though production continues and we see potential
for producing over one billion barrels of oil in the long term."
As Derek Butter says: "The simple question is 'Are the oil and
gas companies running out of reserves?' The answer is plainly 'no'."
[hanson]
[1] There is no need to call on God to estimate how much fossil
carbon there is on earth. Chemistry 101 will show that easily: From
my post: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:20:54, in sci. environment:
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
......
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
and ... uh ... ever heard of plants?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 08:21:28 PM |
|
|
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curl8q$36j$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics anon <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UYJPd.548$W%5.435@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
....
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
......
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
and ... uh ... ever heard of plants?
That would be the stuff referred to in this link:
URL:http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2005/02/14/1108346568.htm
.... simply chosen as being topical and current.
Do your own search on "deforestation". Yes plants make oxygen, some more
than others. But so far no significant oxygen comes out of the ocean, and
we seem intent on paving over the rest of the planet.
Somewhere there needs to be a balance. I'd hate for Nature to be depended
on to find it for us.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 09:40:52 PM |
|
|
In article <n0dQd.46619$Yu.22513@fed1read01>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curl8q$36j$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics anon <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UYJPd.548$W%5.435@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
....
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
......
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
and ... uh ... ever heard of plants?
That would be the stuff referred to in this link:
URL:http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2005/02/14/1108346568.htm
.... simply chosen as being topical and current.
Do your own search on "deforestation". Yes plants make oxygen, some more
than others. But so far no significant oxygen comes out of the ocean, and
we seem intent on paving over the rest of the planet.
Somewhere there needs to be a balance. I'd hate for Nature to be depended
on to find it for us.
Indeed. That equilibrium swing, should it ever arrive, is not likely to be
in our favour :)
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 09:06:53 PM |
|
|
Dear Bruce Sinclair:
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:TidQd.1495$1S4.153638@news.xtra.co.nz...
In article <n0dQd.46619$Yu.22513@fed1read01>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
....
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
and ... uh ... ever heard of plants?
That would be the stuff referred to in this link:
URL:http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2005/02/14/1108346568.htm
.... simply chosen as being topical and current.
Do your own search on "deforestation". Yes plants make oxygen, some more
than others. But so far no significant oxygen comes out of the ocean,
and
we seem intent on paving over the rest of the planet.
Somewhere there needs to be a balance. I'd hate for Nature to be
depended
on to find it for us.
Indeed. That equilibrium swing, should it ever arrive, is not likely to
be
in our favour :)
Damocles sword is already moving. AIDS has strains that are now immune to
our drugs. If it develops its chimera abilities into a protein coat, we'll
be a short-lived species. Not that this type of thing hasn't happened to
us before, but not with our current population density, and with so few of
us with basic survival skills.
I will sorely miss the internet.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 08:33:58 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curl8q$36j$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics anon <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UYJPd.548$W%5.435@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
......
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
and ... uh ... ever heard of plants?
That would be the stuff referred to in this link:
URL:http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2005/02/14/1108346568.htm
... simply chosen as being topical and current.
Do your own search on "deforestation". Yes plants make oxygen, some more
than others. But so far no significant oxygen comes out of the ocean, and
we seem intent on paving over the rest of the planet.
Somewhere there needs to be a balance. I'd hate for Nature to be depended
on to find it for us.
David A. Smith
I take it you've never been in an airplane and looked out the window.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 09:02:11 PM |
|
|
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curn2m$89j$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curl8q$36j$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics anon <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UYJPd.548$W%5.435@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a
chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
......
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
and ... uh ... ever heard of plants?
That would be the stuff referred to in this link:
URL:http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2005/02/14/1108346568.htm
... simply chosen as being topical and current.
Do your own search on "deforestation". Yes plants make oxygen, some
more
than others. But so far no significant oxygen comes out of the ocean,
and
we seem intent on paving over the rest of the planet.
Somewhere there needs to be a balance. I'd hate for Nature to be
depended
on to find it for us.
I take it you've never been in an airplane and looked out the window.
Yes. I've also been on land that was clear-cut, leaving just enough trees
so that you couldn't tell... from the road.
I take it you've never been in an airplane coming into a city that used to
be oxygen-producing land, rather than net oxygen consuming.
I don't want to start hugging trees, and singing Koom-bay-yah. But we
can't depend on the plants you refer to if others you may not be aware of
are cutting them down and/or burning them. There needs to be a balance.
Besides, without petroleum products, there goes vaseline(R) for those
performance reviews, plastics, and even hydrogen for rocket fuel...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 09:30:12 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curn2m$89j$1@mail.specsol.com...
<snip>
I take it you've never been in an airplane and looked out the window.
Yes. I've also been on land that was clear-cut, leaving just enough trees
so that you couldn't tell... from the road.
I take it you've never been in an airplane coming into a city that used to
be oxygen-producing land, rather than net oxygen consuming.
And I take it you've never been in an airplane looking out the window
at what, if not for humans, would be a desert or at best prairie grass,
but is instead filthy with trees.
When people build houses they plant lots of grass and trees. Please
don't bother telling me about skyscraper cities like New York which
are an insignificant amount of area on the planet.
Very few cities are built in what, in the absense of humans, would be
forests.
BTW, the view is a lot better from 8500 feet than it is from 35,000 feet.
I don't want to start hugging trees, and singing Koom-bay-yah. But we
can't depend on the plants you refer to if others you may not be aware of
are cutting them down and/or burning them. There needs to be a balance.
About the only place in the world where there is slash and burn going on
is in Brasil, yet there is still LOTS of rainforest left.
Besides, without petroleum products, there goes vaseline(R) for those
performance reviews, plastics, and even hydrogen for rocket fuel...
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 10:21:48 PM |
|
|
(...)
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
Where do you think the energy comes from to make that
hydrogen in the first place, ace? Yeah, the coal
fired plant down the street. Better off sticking with
your IC engine.
Unless you're talking about building several thousand
nuke power plants (in US alone). Which probably wouldn't
be such a bad idea considering the potential problems
with CO2 buildup. Molten salt reactors look promising.
And the entire oil thing ... yeah it's not looking good.
Last few years most major oil companies have spent more
money on exploration than they've gotten back. ENROI
is steadily dropping on most fields... used to 100:1,
now less than 10:1. Supply and demand are barely meeting.
Cheap oil's definitely on its way out. Enjoy it while
it lasts.
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/peakoil2014.htm
-Eric B
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 10:48:16 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics wrote:
(...)
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
Where do you think the energy comes from to make that
hydrogen in the first place, ace? Yeah, the coal
You betcha, either coal, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear.
No oil.
fired plant down the street. Better off sticking with
your IC engine.
Non sequitur.
Unless you're talking about building several thousand
nuke power plants (in US alone). Which probably wouldn't
be such a bad idea considering the potential problems
with CO2 buildup. Molten salt reactors look promising.
Your point if any?
And the entire oil thing ... yeah it's not looking good.
Last few years most major oil companies have spent more
money on exploration than they've gotten back. ENROI
is steadily dropping on most fields... used to 100:1,
now less than 10:1. Supply and demand are barely meeting.
Cheap oil's definitely on its way out. Enjoy it while
it lasts.
I already did; big ***** V8, a carburetor the size of the Grand Canyon, and
gas $0.25 a gallon. Eat your heart out.
The world changes; adapt or die.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 12:31:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
(...)
My initial point about sticking with your IC engine
was not entirely a non sequitur. I'm assuming we're
talking about reducing the amount of oil we currently
consume for transportation and replacing it with hydrogen.
From a thermodynamic point of view it would more efficient
to simply burn natural gas in an IC engine than a) burning
it to create electricity, b) making hydrogen from this
electricity and c) using this hydrogen for transportation.
And this completely ignores the potential problem of
CO2 buildup, with is a serious one, IMO. Nuke plants
don't emit CO2. Again, my initial point about nuclear
power. I doubt any significant number of nuke plants
are ever going to be built anyway. Too much of a stigma
in the eyes of the public.
The world changes; adapt or die.
Looking more and more like the later. Hope you aren't
leaving too many descendants behind. Then again, nothing
lasts forever, does it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 12:06:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics wrote:
(...)
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
Where do you think the energy comes from to make that
hydrogen in the first place, ace? Yeah, the coal
You betcha, either coal, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear.
.... which is already all accounted for and consumed.
If we're going to be serious about using hydrogen,
especially for transportation, something has to give.
Transportation consumes the lion's share of energy
in the US. The few existing nuke/hydro plants are
woofully inadequate for the task.
Burning coal or gas to make hydrogen is stooopid.
fired plant down the street. Better off sticking with
your IC engine.
Non sequitur.
No *****
Unless you're talking about building several thousand
nuke power plants (in US alone). Which probably wouldn't
be such a bad idea considering the potential problems
with CO2 buildup. Molten salt reactors look promising.
Your point if any?
See above.
-Eric B
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 11:26:27 AM |
|
|
<boo@fractalfreak.com> wrote in message
news:1108443898.582966.112760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Where do you think the energy comes from to make that
hydrogen in the first place, ace? Yeah, the coal
You betcha, either coal, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear.
... which is already all accounted for and consumed.
If we're going to be serious about using hydrogen,
especially for transportation, something has to give.
Transportation consumes the lion's share of energy
in the US.
It could easily be cut in half. In the long term, small vehicles could use
10-20KWhr/day.
The few existing nuke/hydro plants are
woofully inadequate for the task.
Burning coal or gas to make hydrogen is stooopid.
Hydrogen has never been created this way. The modern, economical way is steam
reformulation of methane: CH4 + H20 -> CO + 3H2; CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 12:32:06 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisin wrote:
(...)
It could easily be cut in half. In the long term, small vehicles
could use
10-20KWhr/day.
Sounds good. Though I can't see the majority of consumers
giving up their huge entropy vehicles unless the cost of
oil goes through the roof. Likely our economy would tank
before this would happen. :)
The few existing nuke/hydro plants are
woofully inadequate for the task.
Burning coal or gas to make hydrogen is stooopid.
Hydrogen has never been created this way. The modern, economical way
is steam
reformulation of methane: CH4 + H20 -> CO + 3H2; CO + H2O -> CO2 +
H2.
Ah. OK. And just where does this steam come from? And I see
the above process is still creating CO2. A possible problem (and
NO, I don't want to get into a pissing contest about whether
global warming is really happening).
I think a better approach to make H2 would be to use electricity
from nuke plants to breakdown H2O. Or, possibly using sunlight
to create H2 directly (this doesn't seem too likely at this point).
-Eric B
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 12:39:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I think a better approach to make H2 would be to use electricity
from nuke plants to breakdown H2O...
Not electricity. You get twice the hydrogen per unit of heat via the
sulfur-iodine cycle.
At that, it would only make sense to use this hydrogen as feed stock in
the refining of sand oil. Hydrogen used directly as a transportation
fuel makes EVs look really good. There is too much loss in handling it
and it has a very poor energy density.
-Eric B
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 01:13:28 PM |
|
|
I can just imagine what those greenie geeks will be doing all the time with
that hydrogen - if your think their voices sounded funny on helium, wait'll
they start inhaling that hydrogen...plus, if they light up a cigarette,
BOOM! No moregreenie geeks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 10:47:51 PM |
|
|
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curqc4$iea$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curn2m$89j$1@mail.specsol.com...
<snip>
I take it you've never been in an airplane and looked out the window.
Yes. I've also been on land that was clear-cut, leaving just enough
trees
so that you couldn't tell... from the road.
I take it you've never been in an airplane coming into a city that used
to
be oxygen-producing land, rather than net oxygen consuming.
And I take it you've never been in an airplane looking out the window
at what, if not for humans, would be a desert or at best prairie grass,
but is instead filthy with trees.
Actually, I live in such a place. Before we came, this area was verdant
grassland, occasionally (intentionally) burned clear by Native Americans.
Now it is a true parched desert, with fluid drained for non-native species.
When people build houses they plant lots of grass and trees. Please
don't bother telling me about skyscraper cities like New York which
are an insignificant amount of area on the planet.
Very few cities are built in what, in the absense of humans, would be
forests.
New Jersey, San Francisco, etc. notwithstanding. ;>)
BTW, the view is a lot better from 8500 feet than it is from 35,000 feet.
Depends on the terrain.
I don't want to start hugging trees, and singing Koom-bay-yah. But we
can't depend on the plants you refer to if others you may not be aware
of
are cutting them down and/or burning them. There needs to be a balance.
About the only place in the world where there is slash and burn going on
is in Brasil, yet there is still LOTS of rainforest left.
And the link I provided was NOT Brazil. Take off your blinders, please.
URL:http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/Envfacts/facts/deforestation.htm
.... Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Costa Rica, and Sri Lanka.
Mankind has found much of the rainforest (as only one kind of forest)
inconvenient, it seems. And no, forest is not the only source of oxygen...
Besides, without petroleum products, there goes vaseline(R) for those
performance reviews, plastics, and even hydrogen for rocket fuel...
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
Actually, today it does. It is cheaper to "harvest" the hydrogen from
hydrocarbons, than to do something like electrolysis. I was surprised to
be apprised of this also.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 11:06:47 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curqc4$iea$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:curn2m$89j$1@mail.specsol.com...
<snip>
I take it you've never been in an airplane and looked out the window.
Yes. I've also been on land that was clear-cut, leaving just enough
trees
so that you couldn't tell... from the road.
I take it you've never been in an airplane coming into a city that used
to
be oxygen-producing land, rather than net oxygen consuming.
And I take it you've never been in an airplane looking out the window
at what, if not for humans, would be a desert or at best prairie grass,
but is instead filthy with trees.
Actually, I live in such a place. Before we came, this area was verdant
grassland, occasionally (intentionally) burned clear by Native Americans.
Now it is a true parched desert, with fluid drained for non-native species.
Someone put up a big umbrella and stopped the rain or what?
When people build houses they plant lots of grass and trees. Please
don't bother telling me about skyscraper cities like New York which
are an insignificant amount of area on the planet.
Very few cities are built in what, in the absense of humans, would be
forests.
New Jersey, San Francisco, etc. notwithstanding. ;>)
All of the South West US, the Midwest US...
Even lovely Santa Barbara with all the oaks on the hills was barren before
people planted the oaks before the turn of the last century.
BTW, the view is a lot better from 8500 feet than it is from 35,000 feet.
Depends on the terrain.
Yeah, but the vast majority of the people and their cities you are whining
about are well below 5000 feet.
I don't want to start hugging trees, and singing Koom-bay-yah. But we
can't depend on the plants you refer to if others you may not be aware
of
are cutting them down and/or burning them. There needs to be a balance.
About the only place in the world where there is slash and burn going on
is in Brasil, yet there is still LOTS of rainforest left.
And the link I provided was NOT Brazil. Take off your blinders, please.
URL:http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/Envfacts/facts/deforestation.htm
... Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Costa Rica, and Sri Lanka.
Big woof, a hot ***** in a cold ocean.
Mankind has found much of the rainforest (as only one kind of forest)
inconvenient, it seems. And no, forest is not the only source of oxygen...
Lots of rainforest left, despite the propaganda to the contrary.
Besides, without petroleum products, there goes vaseline(R) for those
performance reviews, plastics, and even hydrogen for rocket fuel...
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
Actually, today it does. It is cheaper to "harvest" the hydrogen from
hydrocarbons, than to do something like electrolysis. I was surprised to
be apprised of this also.
Actually, most gases are produced by freezing air.
If anyone ever comes up with a practical use for hydrogen in large quantities
that may change.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 11:33:10 PM |
|
|
Dear jimp:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:cus017$5a8$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear jimp:
....
BTW, the view is a lot better from 8500 feet than it is from
35,000 feet.
Depends on the terrain.
Yeah, but the vast majority of the people and their cities you are
whining about are well below 5000 feet.
"whining" indeed!
So were most of the forests, by the way.
Actually, I live in such a place. Before we came, this area was
verdant grassland, occasionally (intentionally) burned clear by
Native Americans. Now it is a true parched desert, with fluid
drained for non-native species.
Someone put up a big umbrella and stopped the rain or what?
Paved it over, didn't take care of the land (husbandry of some sort),
diverted/channeled/reservoired the water. Then golf courses and palm trees
everywhere. True xeriscape.
Besides, without petroleum products, there goes vaseline(R) for those
performance reviews, plastics, and even hydrogen for rocket fuel...
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
Actually, today it does. It is cheaper to "harvest" the hydrogen from
hydrocarbons, than to do something like electrolysis. I was surprised
to
be apprised of this also.
Actually, most gases are produced by freezing air.
We weren't discussing "most gasses". Yes, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon
dioxide, and argon are commonly obtained this way.
If anyone ever comes up with a practical use for hydrogen in large
quantities
that may change.
Hydrogen is not obtained in this fashion, currently. And it will not be
obtained economically in the future via "freezing".
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Repeating Rifle" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 12:55:45 AM |
|
|
in article cus017$5a8$1@mail.specsol.com, at
wrote on 2/14/05 9:06 PM:
Actually, most gases are produced by freezing air.
Hydrogen is not one of them.
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Repeating Rifle" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 12:53:22 AM |
|
|
in article curqc4$iea$1@mail.specsol.com, at
wrote on 2/14/05 7:30 PM:
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
But hydrogen in the form of H2 does--at least in commercial quantities.
Hydrogen in water does not count. It is very difficult to burn.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 01:45:51 AM |
|
|
In article <BE36DC94.330C6%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net>, Repeating Rifle <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> writes:
in article curqc4$iea$1@mail.specsol.com, at
wrote on 2/14/05 7:30 PM:
Hydrogen doesn't depend on petroleum products.
But hydrogen in the form of H2 does--at least in commercial quantities.
No. Any H2 that does exist on Earth has been produced from hydrogen
compounds, with an appropriate investement of energy. And any
additional H2 you may need (and you'll need a hell of a lot if you
plan to use it as source of energy) will, again, have to be produced,
using an appropriate investement of energy. An investment which will
exceed the energy returns.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 02:46:03 AM |
|
|
one of the shameful facts is
that mankind didnt succeed until now to immitate
the photosynthesis that any graass can do
may be qm will do it .....(:-)
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 08:07:05 AM |
|
|
Dear Y.Porat:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1108457163.746069.300850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
one of the shameful facts is
that mankind didnt succeed until now to immitate
the photosynthesis that any graass can do
Sure we did! Allowing your skin to be exposed to moderate amounts of UV/a
light, makes some vitamin D. ;>)
We chose the path of feasting on those little "stationary" critters. And
their ancestors.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 09:42:56 PM |
|
|
In article <curn2m$89j$1@mail.specsol.com>, wrote:
In sci.physics "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote:
Dear jimp:
< > wrote in message
news:curl8q$36j$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics anon <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UYJPd.548$W%5.435@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
......
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil
carbon be burned.
and ... uh... the O2 level will be down to ~0% as well ...
and ... uh ... ever heard of plants?
That would be the stuff referred to in this link:
URL:http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2005/02/14/1108346568.htm
... simply chosen as being topical and current.
Do your own search on "deforestation". Yes plants make oxygen, some more
than others. But so far no significant oxygen comes out of the ocean, and
we seem intent on paving over the rest of the planet.
Somewhere there needs to be a balance. I'd hate for Nature to be depended
on to find it for us.
I take it you've never been in an airplane and looked out the window.
I take it you have not seen the data on useful and non useful areas of land
(for growing food and collecting useful water). ?
There may well look like there's a lot out there ... but yes ... we are
capable right now of turning it into a rubbish dump. We are doing so in many
places.
I don't think that's clever ... but YMMV. :)
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
| User: "number6" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
15 Feb 2005 08:28:27 AM |
|
|
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
There may well look like there's a lot out there ... but yes ... we
are
capable right now of turning it into a rubbish dump. We are doing so
in many
places.
We have to consolidate our rubbish ... I once did a calculation ... and
found that the entire garbage generated in the US for 100 years ...
would fill the Grand Canyon ... think of the benefits ... No garbage
dumps ANYWHERE in the US except one place ... 100 years of no worries
of dumping refuse at the cost of only one natural wonder ... then once
filled, we can make it into a huge park ...
And tapping the methane emitted from that landfill would give the power
to keep that park warm and lit ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
14 Feb 2005 09:42:10 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@nospamagresearch.notco.notnz> wrote:
In article <curn2m$89j$1@mail.specsol.com>, wrote:
<snip>
I take it you've never been in an airplane and looked out the window.
I take it you have not seen the data on useful and non useful areas of land
(for growing food and collecting useful water). ?
What data?
Is someone leveling mountains and filling lakes with old tires? Where are
they putting all the dirt from the mountains?
Did Nebraska just get turned into one giant super Walmart?
There may well look like there's a lot out there ... but yes ... we are
capable right now of turning it into a rubbish dump. We are doing so in many
places.
I don't think that's clever ... but YMMV. :)
Oh, the horror of it all.
You really need to get off the ground so you can gain an appreciation for
how really fucking big and empty of humans this planet is even in so called
high population areas.
<snip>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
16 Feb 2005 04:44:23 AM |
|
|
Are we really running out of oil?
We've already passed the Hubbert Peak; that point when total production
begins to decline.
Since production declines, and deman increases, cost per unit will also
increase.
So, we just have to ask - What price point will oil reach, and will it
remain competative against alternative energy?
Since there is no limit to oil's rise, at some point alternative
energies will become more cost effective.
The argument you present states the oil companies argument well; that we
should not even bother to think about alternatives now - ie, not plan
for the inevitable coming future.
Others, including myself, see a 50 to 100 year time line to ready, test,
and deploy acceptable alternatives.
At the very least, these alternatives will keep the prices of oil down,
as well as be sure it is only used where it is really needed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we really running out of oil? |
13 Feb 2005 05:54:11 PM |
|
|
As to the question: Are we really running out of oil?,
plenty of evidence says the answer is, No.
See the materials at
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/replenishment/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
