There is a theory of abiotic oil which stipulates that oil isn't a fossil fuel as was first postulated in the 19th century and has come to be accepted as conventional wisdom, but is actually created as a by-product of chemical reactions in earth's magma. Mind you, the theory has it's advocates and it's critics and it's beyond me to pronounce it fact, but if it is then it means that peak oil is a myth and that we have a practically infinite supply of oil. The big problem of course, is how to get it since it's very deep in earth's crust.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Peak Oil
- Thread starter darkfish01
- Start date
Prepare to get flamed by the resident scientific community. I'm not backing or knocking the theory, but I suggest those who are about to jump this man take a step back and read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Time to take a breather, folks.
Mike
Mike
Pilgrim: I don't share your optimism regarding finding a way to deal with the waste. Should we shoot it out into space? Bury it deeper? Design super-duper containers? I also think that the environmental ramifications of increased nuclear proliferation are cause for alarm. My own province has proposed building three reactors in the northern sector, right in the heart of some rather picturesque (and biodiverse) land. I can't say I condone or support this action. Water tables, ecosystems, and people stand to suffer from long term efects, as yet undetermined. Further, 'safe' is a rather contentious word, and claiming that nuclear power plants have "less long-term impact than any other form of energy production" is indeed a strong stance to take. I might ask where I should find the statistics and studies which bolster your statement.
Gard: While I respect your opinion and experience living close to a source of nucleated waste, I feel that the current attitudes towards nuclear power are pushing an accelerated building mandate. I am unaware of any viable long-term solutions for both waste and core management. Simply pushing forward with a nuclear agenda in the hopes of future generations finding a solution to a problem of our own creating seems, at the very least, irresponsible to me.
All of the above is meant in the most respectful manner, in the hopes of facilitating a discussion. Thanks.
Well stated points. I'm not in total agreement with your assessment of the dangers of nuclear plants. They are a lot safer for the environment than any fossil fuel plant in operational terms, but. of course, the kicker is figuring out what to do with the waste.....
However, there are naysayers to ALL types of power and the cold, hard fact is that there is NO good solution right now that will satisfy the requirements of being environmentally safe, technologically feasible, able to meet our energy needs and still be financially affordable. This means we are forced to pick and choose among several inadequate choices and no matter what is chosen, people are going to scream.
In the meantime, we'll build more nuclear plants and also keep using oil, and a few decades from now the cost of oil will rise to meet the cost of synthetic fuel, which will have become cheaper as the technology to produce it keeps advancing. Consumers will then demand more synthetic fuel and less oil and as the demand for oil goes down, we'll use less and less of it. By the end of the century we will be using almost no oil at all even though there will still be vast underground reserves of it because there will be less expensive and far superior alternatives.
Just have some patience.
Perhaps it is. Perhaps the theory of fossil fuel is also crackpot nonsense. This is why these things end up being debated.
Maybe you could explain WHY it's nonsense?
Do some research. Avoid kook sites. There's no maybe. There's no debate. It's crackpot.
Invalid Link Removed
I have done some research. Which is precisely why I question the orthodox position that oil is a fossil fuel. The link you provided wasn't very helpful in answering some basic questions. For example, IF oil is a fossil fuel, then why has oil been found at depths of 40,000 feet below the surface? Water isn't found this deep, and the laws of hydrodynamics come into play. IF water isn't found this deep, then why is oil? Shouldn't water be found at this depth too, given that water is heavier than oil.? How is that lighter than water oil "sank" to this depth, but water did not.
I am not saying that abiotic oil is a fact, merely that there are still questions about oil and it's origin that have not really been answered.
There are "unanswered questions" regarding gravity. Science isn't all-encompassing. The origins of oil are known as well as gravity is known. "Abiotic Oil" is about as relevant to real oil geology as "intelligent design" is relevant to evolutionary biology.
Keep in mind a few things about oil. First, most of the scientific community accepts that it has been here for a long time. How long? I have no idea, but many millions of years. Now also consider that in this time period, whole continents have moved thousands of miles. Mountains have risen, parts of the seabed have been dissolved into magma. The Earth's crust is dynamic, so it is not hard for me to believe that oil could essentially be found anywhere.
Regarding nuclear waste: The first step towards reducing waste is to demolish every nuclear power plant in the country.
Why?
They're old, crappy, and inefficient. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in decades. That is the first thing that should change! For those who are unfamiliar with nuclear power plant designs, ours are pretty lousy. We insert enriched uranium, extract some of its energy, and toss the rods. The reactors in Europe require less processed starting materials, and extract significantly more energy. When we're done with our uranium rods, there's a lot of highly radioactive material left. Breeder reactors will run off this energy until the rods have very little radioactivity left.
If the United States really cared about nuclear energy, we could work with the Europeans, Japanese, etc. to design ever better reactors. Ideally we may, in the distant future, design plants that produce no waste at all. But this will never happen if we keep bitching and moaning and 3 eyed frogs. Rather, we'll stick to fossil fuels (which produce substantially more radioactivity than nuclear plants), and Earth powered plants (some of which are great, but most likely cannot meet all of our needs).
The "fossil fuel" theory of oil was first proposed in the 19th century and is based largely on the presence of hydrocarbons. Thus the conclusion that it MUST have biological origin. That's not science and it's not "well known". There are hydrocarbons on Titan. Would you care to conclude that the presence of those compounds means that Titan has or had biological life?
Dogmatic rhetoric is not science either.
We already have energy shortages with larger shortages projected. We shouldn't tear down a thing, but rather build improved nuclear reactors - lots of them.
Actually, the entire petroleum industry of Russia is based on the theory, and they have many sound arguments in favor of it. At one time the notion that the earth was round was considered crackpot as well.
This website deals with it in great detail:
Link Removed
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
Fred Hoyle, 1982.
Abiotic oil is crackpot nonsense. Deriding conventional oil geology as "dogmatic" or comparing people proposing abiotic oil nonsense to copernicus is laughable to be kind.
Believe whatever you want.
Believe whatever you want.
Quoting Fred Hoyle is pretty humorous as well...
...if you want to understand astronomy/astrophysics, Freddie was pretty up on things, but he don't have a freakin' clue about biology, and would prove it LOUDLY on a regular basis....
Quoting Fred Hoyle is pretty humorous as well...
But Fred is the final authority on everything! Didn't your mother ever explain things to you by telling it was "according to Hoyle"?
But Fred is the final authority on everything! Didn't your mother ever explain things to you by telling it was "according to Hoyle"?
Different Hoyle!
