Fossil fuels vs. renewable energy

see below


  • Total voters
    71
Fossil fuels will burn up soon enough. For better or for worse, we're going to find out, in the next ten years.

The smartest thing nations could do right now is experiment with extremely efficient fission reactors, and set them running, which will hopefully give us enough time to get an efficient fusion reactor. As is, they aren't. As is, we're screwed.

:)
 
Hakim said:
Increasing the gas tax seems to be more effeicient since ppl will take it into account everytime they are going somewhere. Once the high-taxed SUV is bought, the owner isn't likely to sell it the next day, and until he sells it he will consume just as much as before. However: cierdans idea is still interesting because it offers a path for those countries where high gas tax isn't politically feasible - like US.

It doesn't matter whether people take it into account on a pump by pump basis or on a car purchase by car purchase basis. It doesn't matter whether the tax premium is being paid IN ADVANCE when there is a car purchase or DAY TO DAY when people by gasoline. In both cases, the societal cost of high use of gasoline is being made up for by taxes. I think you are getting confused because you are thinking that since the SUV buyer has ALREADY paid the high tax that he is not being penalized for his high gas usage ... that's not true, he has ALREADY been penalized for his high gas usage by paying the high SUV tax. It doesn't matter whether his penalization comes before or after the car purchase. It will affect his decision in both cases. In both cases the potential for reducing gasoline usage is the same, provided the tax is high enough. However with the vehicle fuel inefficieny based tax you would be more easily able to reduce to a bare mininum the presence of fuel inefficient vehicles whereas with the gas tax you would be more likely to just reduce to a mininum the USE of these vehicles and not their numbers ... which is a problem since you are wasting resources in just manufacturing these vehicles. Resources that all require energy.
 
Perfection said:
No energy is truely renewable. We're just tapping into a larger reserviour

Indeed, so says the second law of thermodynamics.

Of course, what we do determines whether we'll run ot of energy in 10 years or one billion.
 
Perfection said:
No energy is truely renewable. We're just tapping into a larger reserviour

This assumes that the physical world is finite. But it could be infinite.

Also it won't really matter from a Christian perspective if we get energy that say "only" lasts 1 billion years ... because Christ is bound to return within 1 billion years. We don't know if he will return within 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years ... but it will definitely be within 1 billion.

Indeed, so says the second law of thermodynamics

I'm not sure if believe in that stuff. I'm going to probably study it more some day and will make up my mind about it then. I want to look at all the counter-arguments before making up my mind ... that's what being OPEN MINDED is all about :)
 
cierdan said:
This assumes that the physical world is finite. But it could be infinite.

Also it won't really matter from a Christian perspective if we get energy that say "only" lasts 1 billion years ... because Christ is bound to return within 1 billion years. We don't know if he will return within 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years ... but it will definitely be within 1 billion.

Christians are not the only people.

And also, who says he will not return in 1 billion?

Our lifetimes must be as the flicker of an eye to the experiences of an immortal, esepecially one who can see all of time at once.
 
North King said:
Christians are not the only people.

Maybe we are miscommunicating. The Second Coming is supposed to affect ALL people, whether presently Christian or not. There wouldn't be any need for energy after the Second Coming because the world will be renewed or renovated in a marvelous way that prevents any kind of decay or wearing out. So the new earth and new heavens won't require any energy or anything like that to be made. Whether you end up in Heaven or Hell, it won't matter (in Heaven you won't need it like I said and in Hell I imagine you won't have any use for it or wouldn't need it either)

And also, who says he will not return in 1 billion?

I think in the Bible it says that the coming will be soon or something ... I don't remember the exact wording. Let's go with "soon" (you can look it up and tell me the accurate wording) ... I can imagine how 1,000 years can be soon and imagine how 10,000 years can be soon and even how 100,000 years can be soon ... but 1 BILLION years does not seem like "soon" to me!

Our lifetimes must be as the flicker of an eye to the experiences of an immortal, esepecially one who can see all of time at once.

Good point. My perspective is limited. However I would imagine that as much as possible that a divine being would use language that is as accessible as possible to us limited time-bound mortals. Also I fail to see how 1 billion could be soon mathematically ... no one thinks the human race is 1 billion years old or anything close to that so how could 1 billion be "soon" ... "soon" has to be a length of time that is SHORTER than some standard ... but if the human race has been around for LESS than 1 billion than 1 billion can't be SHORTER than ANY standard as for as human time is concerned.

In any case, when you get to energy that would last for like 100 billion years it will be irrelevant either way because even if the Second Coming doesn't happen by then, the sun will blow up or something.
 
Yep, I think the sun is scheduled to blow up in 5 billion years or so...

Anyway, I didn't vote on this thread because I see nuclear as the only efficient source of fuel for at least the near future (next century or two?). And yes, fusion is considered nuclear power, too.
 
cierdan said:
I'm not sure if believe in that stuff. I'm going to probably study it more some day and will make up my mind about it then. I want to look at all the counter-arguments before making up my mind ... that's what being OPEN MINDED is all about :)

How do you know that universal entropy falling to zero isn't part of God's greater plan? :p
 
cierdan said:
This assumes that the physical world is finite. But it could be infinite.
Almost all scientific theories with a serious following don't allow for access to infinite resources.

cierdan said:
Also it won't really matter from a Christian perspective if we get energy that say "only" lasts 1 billion years ... because Christ is bound to return within 1 billion years. We don't know if he will return within 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years ... but it will definitely be within 1 billion.
How do you know that?

cierdan said:
I'm not sure if believe in that stuff. I'm going to probably study it more some day and will make up my mind about it then. I want to look at all the counter-arguments before making up my mind ... that's what being OPEN MINDED is all about :)
Sometimes you can be open-minded to the point where your brains fall out.

Most scientific thoeries call for non-infinite access to resources, and while it is not absolute proof it's really the best we've got and we can say with some certainty that the end is coming (though it's probobly not near)
 
cierdan said:
I don't think anyone thinks the planet is creating more oil than we are consuming ... or am I wrong about that? Please enlighten me.

Coming back on topic... I don't think the planet is creating more oil than we are consuming either, but, other poster (sorry, I cannot remember his/her name) posted this article:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

I am not supporting that idea, nor that I believe in what the article says. I just need more data and double-check what the article says.

Edit: I copy and paste what I found interesting about that article.

that funny article above said:
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:

Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.

At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.

Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."

In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.

In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.

Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.

periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil


There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr. Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.

...snip...

Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?

(I have no opinion so far about the theory. So, please, don't shoot at the pianist ;) )
 
That theory sounds interesting and plausible, but where does it claim that we are using less than is being replenished? Even if there are "vast, deep pools of oil" the article still notes that these have to undergo some process which causes the oil reservoirs to "replenish" ... so there's still the issue of the rate of use being higher than the rate of replenishing ... it's not like we can wait around for the reservoirs to replenish ... do you see what I mean? It's not like we can use it until we run out (due to higher use versus replenishing) and then wait 10 or 20 etc years for it to replenish again
 
Perfection said:
Almost all scientific theories with a serious following don't allow for access to infinite resources.

Well you said "ALMOST all" ... so what's your point? Are you against minorities :p

How do you know that?

You're basically asking how do I know the Christian religion is true. Well to know something is true means:

1. You believe it to be true.
2. It is in fact true.
3. You came to believe it to be true by a true process.

"True" is defined as it was defined by St Anselm of Canterbury -- so please read the below before criticising my wording.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

Spoiler :
Truth in statements and in the will

In On Freedom of Choice (De libertate arbitrii) Anselm defines freedom of choice as "the power to preserve rectitude of will for its own sake" (DLA 3). He explores the notion of rectitude of will most thoroughly in On Truth (De veritate), so in order to understand the definition of freedom of choice, we must look first at Anselm's discussion of truth. Truth is a much broader notion for Anselm than for us; he speaks of truth not only in statements and opinions but also in the will, actions, the senses, and even the essences of things. In every case, he argues, truth consists in correctness or "rectitude." Rectitude, in turn, is understood teleologically; a thing is correct whenever it is or does whatever it ought, or was designed, to be or do. For example, statements are made for the purpose of "signifying that what-is is" (DV 2). A statement therefore is correct (has rectitude) when, and only when, it signifies that what-is is. So Anselm holds a correspondence theory of truth, but it is a somewhat unusual correspondence theory. Statements are true when they correspond to reality, but only because corresponding to reality is what statements are for. That is, statements (like anything else) are true when they do what they were designed to do; and what they were designed to do, as it happens, is to correspond to reality.

Truth in the will also turns out to be rectitude, again understood teleologically. Rectitude of will means willing what one ought to will or (in other words) willing that for the sake of which one was given a will. So, just as the truth or rectitude of a statement is the statement's doing what statements were made to do, the truth or rectitude of a will is the will's doing what wills were made to do. In DV 12 Anselm connects rectitude of will to both justice and moral evaluation. In a broad sense of ‘just’, whatever is as it ought to be is just. Thus, an animal is just when it blindly follows its appetites, because that is what animals were meant to do. But in the narrower sense of ‘just’, in which justice is what deserves moral approval and injustice is what deserves reproach, justice is best defined as "rectitude of will preserved for its own sake" (DV 12). Such rectitude requires that agents perceive the rectitude of their actions and will them for the sake of that rectitude. Anselm takes the second requirement to exclude both coercion and "being bribed by an extraneous reward" (DV 12). For an agent who is coerced into doing what is right is not willing rectitude for its own sake; and similarly, an agent who must be bribed to do what is right is willing rectitude for the sake of the bribe, not for the sake of rectitude.

Since, as we have already seen, Anselm will define freedom as "the power to preserve rectitude of will for its own sake," the arguments of On Truth imply that freedom is also the capacity for justice and the capacity for moral praiseworthiness. Now it is both necessary and sufficient for justice, and thus for praiseworthiness, that an agent wills what is right, knowing it to be right, because it is right. That an agent wills what is right because it is right entails that he is neither compelled nor bribed to perform the act. Freedom, then, must be neither more nor less than the power to perform acts of that sort.


So how it is that I know it is true, is because all three conditions as it just so happens happen to be fulfilled and therefore I can be said to know it. If you want to argue whether condition 2 IS IN FACT fulfilled, then I could present lots and lots of evidence and arguments for Christian religion. These arguments wouldn't prove it to be true by way of a mathematical proof, but they would make belief that it is true as reasonable as believing that men landed on the moon (some people don't believe men landed on the moon but most people think it is reasonable to believe that it happened even though we can't prove it with a mathematical proof)

Sometimes you can be open-minded to the point where your brains fall out.

This just sounds like a slogan without any substance unless i'm missing something. You have to explain WHY being open minded is bad not just say it is bad ;)

Most scientific thoeries call for non-infinite access to resources, and while it is not absolute proof it's really the best we've got and we can say with some certainty that the end is coming (though it's probobly not near)

Well you just made my point. I don't have "absolute proof" in the sense of a mathematical proof or purely logical proof that Christian religion is true, but I have good evidence and arguments that it is true that makes it reasonable to believe just as it is reasonable to believe that man landed on the moon or that Britney Spears has had breast surgery ;)

But, in reference to this topic, I think you are backing off your statement of "almost all" ... and now just saying "most" ... well what most people believe about something isn't necessarily true. IN FACT in VERY MANY cases, what most people believe is demonstrably false. For example, most people believe that to "peruse" means to look over something in a cursory manner when IN FACT "peruse" means to look over something in a THOROUGH manner (look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me). This is just one of HUNDREDS of examples I can give.
 
Somebody brought up solar pannels.

For the life of me, I don't know why we aren't encouraging people to put solar pannels on their roof for auxillary power. Yes, of course we'll never be able to live off solar power alone. But it can seriously cut down on our intake of other primary power sources, and from what I understand its reasonably cheap.

Build a national network of nuclear plants, put solar pannels on all the roofs, and you've got a much cleaner, much better energy solution. I don't understand why we're not doing this now.
 
Perfection said:
No energy is truely renewable. We're just tapping into a larger reserviour

I never expected you to fall prey to the same thing I chided BasketCase for:

in the context of this discussion (i.e. within the refernce system of earth and man's energy needs), your statement is wrong.

(on a universal scale, it is true, though)
 
Urederra said:
(I have no opinion so far about the theory. So, please, don't shoot at the pianist ;) )

not that I'm not tempted ;)

nah, one thing that's so wrong about the article, which you can't know (unless you are a geologist):

Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?

false assumption at the start - marine organisms contribute almost 100% of the source material for oil.

An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation.

sadly, the isotopic composition of oil doesn't fit an inorganic source, but an organic source instead. OOPS!


Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil.

simple - the source formation is rarely suitable as a trap - thus the oil gets trapped in rocks that are different from where the organic material stems from.

Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.
:rolleyes:

a gas/oil trap traps: gasses - such as (inorganic) helium, along with the oil.

etc.

good find, U, but there's nothing to it.

the original article:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...1085470440708_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

where did the guy go wrong then?
The theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than {approx}30 kbar, excepting only the lightest, methane. The pressure of 30 kbar corresponds to depths of {approx}100 km. For experimental verification of the predictions of the theoretical analysis, a special high-pressure apparatus has been designed that permits investigations at pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1,500°C and also allows rapid cooling while maintaining high pressures. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple-distilled water.
this already shows it:
he does a theoretical analysis of a purely inorganic reaction, and then proves this is correct - nice.
but organic molecules tend to do a lot of things as organic reactions - e.g. under the presence of catalysing substances. Just because there is an INorganic way of making oil doesn't mean there's no ORGANIC way - so Kennedy assumes things are one-on-one where they aren't.

With his approach, I can 'prove' that there is no living human - 99.99% of al chemical reactions in a living human can be done under immense pressure and heat - but also at survivable temperatures in the presence of a catalytic molecule - e.g. en enzym. If I do not acknowledge the existence of enzyms, then the needed temp for e.g. ATP-synthesis is about 230°C, IIRC. :rolleyes:
 
carlosMM said:
I never expected you to fall prey to the same thing I chided BasketCase for:

in the context of this discussion (i.e. within the refernce system of earth and man's energy needs), your statement is wrong.

(on a universal scale, it is true, though)

This is really funny. One one side you have Basket criticizing you for taking a too NARROW view of what constitutes renewable energy and on the OTHER side you have Perfection criticizing you for taking too BROAD a view of what constitutes renewable energy :crazyeye:
 
cierdan said:
This is really funny. One one side you have Basket criticizing you for taking a too NARROW view of what constitutes renewable energy and on the OTHER side you have Perfection criticizing you for taking too BROAD a view of what constitutes renewable energy :crazyeye:

other way round - it is I critizising THEM ;)

nah, I just think it is absrud to blow into a debate with a very clear definition of that's discussed with a remark that - just for the heck of it - changes the implied reference system and thus blows all definitions.

Imagine you're give a physics test in highschool where you're supposed to compute the impact energy of a biker hitting a car on the interstate - and you write: "can't do, as the local gravity isn't know - might be on Mars for all I know" :rolleyes:
anything but helpful.
 
its dooable, but life will be so more inneficient.(spelling?)

Anyone imagine flying a plane on vegatable oil? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom