Science Question about Oil consumption

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Coal is already dead. That is without any help from environmentalists but pure economics.

Coal is FAR from dead.

Coal is definitely destructive to remove from the soils and rocks below. Some of the threads on ATS detailed that some interesting artifacts can be found in a coal field, however!

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


And if you really think hard about it, what is the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere but unused energy? We took the energy to get CO2 but why not take it all the way! Take the "waste" CO2 and put it good use!

Oil will be around for a long time! Same with natural gas. CO2 is the new gold rush waiting to happen.

The CO2 is "used" energy. Reversing the reaction takes more energy than you got out in the first place.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


And if you really think hard about it, what is the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere but unused energy? We took the energy to get CO2 but why not take it all the way! Take the "waste" CO2 and put it good use!

Oil will be around for a long time! Same with natural gas. CO2 is the new gold rush waiting to happen.

The CO2 is "used" energy. Reversing the reaction takes more energy than you got out in the first place.

They don't understand that part, thermodynamics escapes them ones.

a reply to: intrptr

Will we though?

And is oil really as finite as some people claim?

We are after all supposed to be well into "peak oil" (which was really a misnomer anyway because they were talking about and alluding to "peak fossil"/"peak hydrocarbon") by now and... Well we're not.

I actually got to have Christmas dinner for a guy who spent his career first as a research scientist and then a bureaucrat for a government agency which would definitely know if this were really all based in sound science since he was actually there at the meetings with NASA etc when all this REALLY got Rolling!

What he had say, I found very interesting and compelling as well as extremely credible because he help get a lot of the early initial funding etc approved, saw the findings from the first $50 million worth of research his agency did, saw that their findings directly contradicted pretty much everything we are now told is "indispensable fact/settled science", and went along with it anyway.

You could literally feel the shame and disappointment in himself over doing this when he told you all this. It's, to say the least, something he deeply regrets and takes no pride in yet he tells people about it because he is that convinced of the importance of getting the information out there.

Oh and BTW... There's no such thing as settled science, that's just not how it works.

People didn't say no we have Newton the science is settled f*** your quantum mechanics!

Why? Because that's not science!

P.s. Do you really believe it's a coincidence that all this REALLY got rolling when it was obvious the Soviets were hitting the skids? As he put it "peace dividend was the bureaucrat's equivalent of thermonuclear Holocaust!" He then went on to say that there was genuine panic as people were realizing that if SOMETHING wasn't found that they could justify spending all the money on people would actually expect taxes to decrease etc!

I don't believe this guy because it fits the narrative that works better for me on a personal beliefs level, I believe him because what he said makes far too much sense while also squaring with all the stuff my apparently lying eyes actually see going on in the world!

He had some other interesting stuff to say which I actually plan on talking more in-depth with him about, including getting his input on what bushes to beat to maybe actually find documentation etc to corroborate some of it... I'm not holding my breath though, we've seen how well people in government seem to keep track of emails and stuff! I imagine that I'll run into lots of conveniently lost, erroneously marked for deletion and destruction, and otherwise missing everything... But you never know.

The Earths oil is a heatsink/coolant.

Manmade global warming anyone?

originally posted by: POWMIA
Thanks for the responses, however, I was looking for a more "Earth Science" answer.
Like the Earth dry up and fissures form and the surface cave into the lower crust?

The sink holes in certain places in the US that swallow trees and lakes are because the ground collapsed into the enormous salt mines beneath them.

Coal used to be mined underground, now they practice 'Mountain Top removal mining', so the method has changed from tunnels to open pit or trench mining. Same with mineral mining like copper, lead and gold.

The results of draining all the oil beneath deserts in the ME has yet to be revealed. Should be spectacular. The results of abandoned oil wells in other places are permanent environmental pollution, spills, dead wildlife and sick people.

One example of failure of the ground above a natural gas mine. Welcome to the infamous "Gate of Hell".

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: POWMIA
Thanks for the responses, however, I was looking for a more "Earth Science" answer.
Like the Earth dry up and fissures form and the surface cave into the lower crust?

Coal used to be mined underground, now they practice 'Mountain Top removal mining', so the method has changed from tunnels to open pit or trench mining. Same with mineral mining like copper, lead and gold.

One example of failure of the ground above a natural gas mine. Welcome to the infamous "Gate of Hell".

Coal is still mined underground. The method used depends on the depth of the seam. Mineral mining is entirely dependent on the mineral and its location. Uranium in porous sandstone is mined by pumping carbonated water through it. Some copper ores can be recovered using bacteria.
Natural gas is not "mined" in the traditional sense. Pipes work much better and can reach thousands of feet below the surface.
You are a mine of misinformation.

a reply to: Macenroe82

You don't know what you are talking about.

a reply to: roguetechie

And is oil really as finite as some people claim?

Sweet crude is. Evidenced by all the fracking, tar sand oil development and pipelines spanning continents.

a reply to: pteridine

You are a mine of misinformation.

And you are deflecting from the truth, as I expect all good minions do, 'Teradyne'.

We almost don't need it anymore now. I would say in 10 years oil, coal and natural gas will be obsolete.

Battery Technology, Solar Technology, Wind Turbine Technology, Manufacturing and Recycling Technology.

It might come down to only a few industries using them...maybe space exploration for Launch or Steel Manufacturing etc but most cars, household items, power supply, trains, transportation of goods, we just won't need fossil fuels any more in 10 years.

Say good bye to wars in the middle east or us cozying up to terrorist supporting countries like Saudi Arabia etc.

a reply to: intrptr

Wait wait, the pipelines spanning continents is evidence of oil running out?

OMFG too funny bro!

You have literally just listed NOTHING but things brought about by new technology and changing economic dynamics, and tried to pass them off as "proof" of oil running out!

Hint: Pipelines can take DECADES TO PAY OFF!
You finance stuff like pipelines with big ass bonds and etc where you have to VERY THOROUGHLY prove to your investors that there is enough supply that not only will you be able to GUARANTEE that not only will x gallons of whatever be available to be pushed down this pipeline for x number of decades, BUT ALSO that the base price per gallon of x won't crest x dollars in that period thereby reducing the amount you can charge to less than it costs to run the damn pipeline!

You literally know nothing about oil, or economics, or basic logistics.... That's the only conclusion I can come to after you writing THAT RESPONSE to what I wrote! **SNIP**

a reply to: amazing

Wait what?

You do know that we use "oil" for a hell of a lot more than fuel right?

You know like every single thing on that list of yours being heavily oil dependent in order to continue existing even if you were to take away ANY need for fuel for the various transportation devices and power plants!

Hybrid cars and electric cars still need tires, lubrication, asphalt to drive on, polymers and composites to be constructed out of and so many other uses it's not even funny....

Same with stuff like photovoltaic solar systems.... There is no PV solar without whole super tanker loads of oil!

Could recycling, finding alternative formulations using non "fossil fuel" feed stocks, and etc eventually drastically reduce this?

Yes, and we should be putting way more effort into this than we have been!

That stuff is extremely important, and further it will likely allow us to live in a high technology consumer oriented society without being nearly as hard on everything as we are now!

But don't buy the hype that oil natural gas and etc are even CLOSE to obsolete! That's just a straight up lie to make people feel good and believe that the environmental legislation and etc enacted currently aren't dismal failures if not outright window dressing and fraud based/laced...

We're actually doing outright horribly at protecting our environment and lessening the impact of humanity on the planet while certain parties are breaking their arms in their haste and overenthusiastic patting themselves on the back!

a reply to: roguetechie

You have literally just listed NOTHING but things brought about by new technology and changing economic dynamics, and tried to pass them off as "proof" of oil running out!

I said sweet crude, not oil in general. And yes, tar sands oil production with a long pipeline to reach the Gulf coast, plus fracking is proof we in the west are resorting to more toxic, higher cost, lower yield sources of energy.

a reply to: pteridine

It is only half way consumed!

It is called “upcycling” which is where you take a “waste product”, in this case, CO2, and turn it into a marketable product.

Right now, it is spit over to the atmosphere. Which is a losers bet. Use the whole product is the future. Denying it is a waste of time.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pteridine

You are a mine of misinformation.

And you are deflecting from the truth, as I expect all good minions do, 'Teradyne'.

And your "truth" is whatever you made up on the spur of the moment. You don't know about coal or natural gas but posture anyway.
I will be happy to detail the errors in your comments. Wyodak coal is mined in an open pit. Eastern bituminous is mined by stripping if the overburden is not excessive. Mountain top removal is a form of stripping. Deep mining is usually longwall as room and pillar mining leaves coal in the ground.

Gas is not "mined" any more than petroleum is "mined."

Now that you have been educated, go forth and proclaim the truth.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Yes, upcycling is unbelievably cool! Making the same resources work for us over and over in slightly different ways is the wave of the future.

I always tell people that the day old landfills are worth more per square foot than Manhattan real estate, you'll know it's the future!

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: pteridine

It is only half way consumed!

It is called “upcycling” which is where you take a “waste product”, in this case, CO2, and turn it into a marketable product.

Right now, it is spit over to the atmosphere. Which is a losers bet. Use the whole product is the future. Denying it is a waste of time.

I have had this argument many times with people who do not understand chemistry or economics. To be blunt, making anything from CO2 won't make a significant dent in emissions. It is a nice PR idea and makes those who propose it appear to be environmentally astute....but only to the general public. 'Upcycling' can only use a small fraction of the CO2 from combustion and the costs of capturing and chemically reducing the CO2 require that the product have some market value. In 2017, about 36.79 Billion tons of CO2 were produced. This amount contains about 10 billion tons of carbon.
If one were to make anything of value in any amount, the price of that commodity would begin to fall as the market saturated. If one made yet more, the product would cost more to produce than its falling value and could even have negative value, i.e., you would have to pay to have it taken away.
Do a little online research. Look up the demand for various carbon-based non-fuel products and see what the numbers are relative to CO2 emissions. Consider formic acid, HCOOH, only one H2 reduction away from CO2. Actual world demand is roughly 1 million tons/year. Subtract that amount from 36.79 BILLION tons of CO2 [the MW's are close enough for this exercise] and see what difference it makes.
Now consider a more complex product that would sequester the carbon for a century or so; say a long lived plastic. Look up the global demand for plastic and determine if that amount will make a significant difference in emissions should you be able to produce all of it from CO2.
You will soon discover that while these concepts are commendable, they are insignificant.

Please explain what you meant by "Denying it is a waste of time."

originally posted by: POWMIA
Hello,

I was thinking about what the future might hold in a scenario where people have drained all the crude oil they can from the earth.

So here it is: What will happen (Scientifically) to the Earth when no Oil supply is left because we pumped out all we could?

Thanks in advance!

generally the pores are refilled with water, and/or the land subsides somewhat. This is already observed.

There will still be some petroleum left, but it will be sparse and uneconomically recoverable. There's lots of liquid hydrocarbon on Titan. Anybody getting any soon? Nope. When petroleum gets very expensive, people will mine landfills for plastic.

Editorial: Petroleum is far too valuable and useful as a chemical stock to be combusted and burnt---like burning Picassos in the fireplace for heating.

a reply to: pteridine

Correct. The way out of the cilmate disaster we are facing is morality and law-enforcement. Make coal mining and burning a global capital crime. In the future, people will regard the use of coal as little different from slavery: morally vile, and yet a common ordinary day to day occurrence back in the past.

The ideal form of carbon sequestration is as solid coal: leave it be.