Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Radioheart

We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all. Might as well get a headstart.

Also, go go fusion power!

Well, the supply actually isn't exactly *finite* because it's renewable (Changing World Technologies still has their plant in Carthage, Missouri making oil from turkey guts, although it's had business problems and public-image problems and may not be profitable). Although obviously in order to make more fossil fuels you'd need energy input, and fusion power (which locally or in the sun) is one of the only ways to supply that energy long-term. And at that point, fossil fuels are only a distribution mechanism useful mainly for off-grid components (automobiles), and you might consider another energy distribution medium like fuel cells.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

I personally think that we shouldn't focus on co2 alone. There are a lot more factors that show that we are kinda ruining our planet. Increased smog levels, polluted oceans (the floating plastic, dead spots), the ozone layer, depleting resources, overpopulation etc. Not all of this causes global warming. But it is all the caused by our inability to reduce our production population and our constant need for 'moar'.

Even many of the people who believe that AGW is unsound would agree with that. Although personally I would like to see a more quantitative proposal, I approve of the idea of being a responsible steward of Earth's resources.

-Max

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Radioheart

We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all.

Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Although personally I would like to see a more quantitative proposal

I agree there. But people are always a bit bad at very large scale, long time stuff.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Also, we don't know the effects of certain 'sustainable' technologies. Wind energy for example. We don't know what all these windmills have for effect. First law of thermodynamics, the energy must come from somewhere. So it will have some effect. (Recent research has shown that it will influence weather patterns).

It would seem that for the most part, this should not be an enormous issue, though wind is not one of my favorite prospects anyway. But we have to bear in mind that capturing energy is not a one way trip. The great majority of that energy will be dispersed shortly after collection, in the form of heat. The thermal radiation from factories, and engines and such will help to maintain turbulence in the atmosphere due to convection. I still think that geothermal and solar are our best bets.

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

Well, if they believe that the Earth is only 7000 years old, then the creation of oil must necessarily be rather quick.




And Licker, we were all having a somewhat rousing, but engaging and (mostly) polite discussion of this subject. It really seems that the only one not worth discussing it with is you, so I wonder why you decided that you had to begin to try to sabotage this thread by trolling and making personal attacks?

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Well, the supply actually isn't exactly *finite* because it's renewable (Changing World Technologies still has their plant in Carthage, Missouri making oil from turkey guts, although it's had business problems and public-image problems and may not be profitable). Although obviously in order to make more fossil fuels you'd need energy input, and fusion power (which locally or in the sun) is one of the only ways to supply that energy long-term. And at that point, fossil fuels are only a distribution mechanism useful mainly for off-grid components (automobiles), and you might consider another energy distribution medium like fuel cells.

The various Biofuel processes have their issues, but some are promising. They are not, in any sense of the term, "fossil fuels".

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

It would seem that for the most part, this should not be an enormous issue, though wind is not one of my favorite prospects anyway. But we have to bear in mind that capturing energy is not a one way trip. The great majority of that energy will be dispersed shortly after collection, in the form of heat. The thermal radiation from factories, and engines and such will help to maintain turbulence in the atmosphere due to convection. I still think that geothermal and solar are our best bets.

It could create more powerful storms. As I live in a country that once had around 1/12 of it destroyed by a storm, and which also is around 50% under the sea level. I would rather not have more dangerous storms. I kinda like it here, no dangerous animals. Mostly liberal laws. Good healthcare, good job opportunities. (I do like geothermal and solar energy. That is heat that is otherwise wasted. We could also use other forms waste heat more efficiently. Some Russian cities have used waste energy from electricity plants to great effect for example).

Well, if they believe that the Earth is only 7000 years old, then the creation of oil must necessarily be rather quick.

Yeah, but I believed it wasn't religious nuts. More fuel industry nuts. There is more on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Note, that I don't believe it. But I also don't have any knowledge about it. They could be right. I just don't know.

[Executor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyweiser View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radioheart View Post
We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all.
Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

Yes but it takes thousands and thousands of years for fossil fuels to be created naturaly, and the world just keeps moving faster and more demanding.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by thejeff

The various Biofuel processes have their issues, but some are promising. They are not, in any sense of the term, "fossil fuels".

Well, they are petrochemicals. Is this a semantic quibble about the fact that they don't come from fossils, or are you claiming that the oil produced from thermal depolymerization (or whatever CWT is calling it nowadays) is chemically different from regular light crude? If so, can you substantiate that claim?

-Max

Edit: P.S. Soyweiser, you may be about to see something you thought was impossible. If thejeff says something like, 'Yes, fossil fuel light crude is 30-50 carbons in length and TDP only produces short-chain hydrocarbons about 18 carbons long,' I will say, 'Oh. I didn't know that. My understanding was that it was the same as oil from oil wells, after refinement.' Or perhaps thejeff will say, 'Oh. I didn't know that was possible.'

[llamabeast]

Max, the point is that burning fossil fuels causes a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. With biofuels and all their derivatives, by contrast, the carbon came from the atmosphere very recently, when it was made, so burning it only puts you back where you started.

The two are basically interchangeable, _except_ for the fact that there's no way you're going to synthesis fuel and pump it underground. So, the more we replace fossil fuel usage with biofuel usage, the less the atmospheric CO2 will increase.