When did you realized that oil is the greatest renewable resource?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true
youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The science is settled mate. Fossil fuels are fossils... btfo, green rules. Are you some kind of denialist?! I'm pretty sure this has been debunked by snopes and politifact. Oil companies are a modern day holocaust.

Lol just kidding

Is it really? It's not the first time I hear about this but I don't know the science behind it

When I heard about the fossil theory for the first time in school. I just found it stupid.

No one knows for sure since it's generated so deep down there. The proof is going to be in the oil prices.

The oil industry likes to push peak oil in order to raise oil prices, but it's getting obvious that the production capacity of the Earth is infinite.

I have long been under the suspicion "Peak Oil" is just a meme used to simultaneously whip up certain groups and keep the oil industry alive to some degree.

Why does the crust of Earth look a flag of Germany?

is the race for (((climate change))) just (((them))) going after the arabs and niggers in their jewy way

When browsing I thought this was gonna be a Germany thread, that's why I'm here. Let's talk about that instead since oil science is (((settled))).

I does seem kind of retarded that dinosaurs and plants were just spontaneously burried all in the same place and created millions of barrels of oil that we still haven't run out of.
The renewable theory seems easier to believe than that.

Because you are all going to burn in hell probs

There can be some abiotic hydrocarbons, but the bulk of it IS going to come from long dead vegetation that has been subjected to heat and pressure over a long time.

I wouldn't call it renewable, not in any sense that'd be useful.

Besides, it still fucks up the environment and we should STILL be looking for alternative energy sources primarily fusion and thorium fission reactors.

Oil is valuable even if we aren't literally wasting it by burning it, it's the most valuable organic precursor we have and is used for virtually everything in our daily lives. If we fucking burn most of it it's wasted. Then how are you going to make plastics and pharmeceuticals?

It's a matter of chemistry. abiotic oil is pretty stupid, but there is a better theory about microbes in the lower parts of the crust living off the warmth of the mantle.

the theory is they live, die, accumulate, then are cooked, pressurized and rise to the surface.

Either way more research is needed and even if it's true, Oil would remain a huge carbon waste into our atmosphere.

The Mantle is looking to gas something

>infinite oil is real
>global warming is real
we're all going to die a slow cooking death

There's going to be SOME abiotic hydrocarbons, I mean that's going to ultimately be the source of life on earth. Some theories about how life on earth originated was that hydrocarbon layers protected early RNA/DNA from UV radiation damage which allowed it and early amino acids to arise.

Or you can believe in an invisible man who waved his hand around and everything sprang up just as it is today 6000 years ago.

Were supposed to believe that for eons, ages, there were NO microorganism that could metabolize cellulose and devour plant life. So what happened was all the dead plants, all the massive dead trees literally sat crowding the earth for AGES until they were overturned and buried in sediment by the arduously slow process of geologic activity. And so all that dead carbon matter gets buried and forms massive deposits of black gold. You're telling me no organism had evolved to fill that niche for an effective eternity, until it did. And that is the only reason we are able to have an industrial civilization, because there's an abundance--albeit a finite one so be careful--of this primordial remnant of plant life.

>more research is needed
Don't be stupid. the science is settled. I think if the renewable nature of oil were true that Elon Musk, the super genius of the modern age who is also our savior, would be pursuing that. I checked greenpeace's website and they totall debunk this. Try again.

no shit oil is a renewable resource, fossil fuels is renewable it's just that we use it up faster than it can be replaced

What we need is a synthetic fuel that's renewable, clean, and still runs reliably in my '77 F100's 351W all while costing $1.80/gal. Do that and I'll support it and agree with moving away from gas.

What are trees and giant ferns.

>greenpeace

But there's so much of it though. We've been burning that shit for 100 years now and we still have millions of barrels in the ground. Also right now there are more known reserves than ever before. We only drill 1/3 of the deposits because drilling more is too expensive. And you are telling me all those millions of tons of oil is from dead dinosaurs?

Now

Elon is indeed a genius. That doesn't mean he knows everything and is infallible.

>protected early RNA/DNA from UV radiation damage which allowed it and early amino acids to arise.
Early Earth had a thick cloud layer making the surface dark. Life evolved during that time. There are some interesting theories of lightening striking wet clay to start the first organic, self replicating molecules. There only needed to be one "accident" for it to get started.

Test

Not dinosaurs, plants. See above.

...

Why don't we just drill asteroids? - Some Dumbass

>What we need is a synthetic fuel that's renewable, clean, and still runs reliably in my '77 F100's 351W all while costing $1.80/gal. Do that and I'll support it and agree with moving away from gas.
there is a clue to making diesel from algae and that would be "carbon neutral".

Either way, we're moving away from gas whether you like it or not.
The research is not settled. There could be different kinds of oil deposits, one from microbes from the surface and others from the subsurface.
oh and you're a troll. got it.

This actually makes more sense that trillions of dinosaurs died on the seafloor and somehow got under 5km rock and turned to oil.

>And you are telling me all those millions of tons of oil is from dead dinosaurs?
I wish we had flags so I could see your American flag.

No. Oil isn't from "dionosaurs" you fucking mong.

daily reminder that the question if governments will continue to promote the use of fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity

My point still stands - the world consumes 96 million barrels a day, so 9.6 MILLION TONS of oil per DAY. Do you even understand how many plants and giant ferns you would need for that, considering that a ton of organic matter transforms into less than a ton of oil?

>Then how are you going to make plastics and pharmeceuticals?
They can derive those synthetically now and it's getting cheaper. We need to use oil in limited amounts and we do waste it.

We need a commercial alternative to plastic that isn't so destructive and is reusable and recyclable.

I think it's true. The same wells in Texas are still going strong, even after we started drilling there in the 1940's

>mein sides

>Do you even understand how many plants and giant ferns you would need for that, considering that a ton of organic matter transforms into less than a ton of oil?
yes, that's why it's a problem.

I like how one scientist put it, he didn't think we were destroying our atmosphere but "restoring" the Carboniferous era atmosphere. He claimed we probably won't like massive wildfires, explosive lightening storms, many more hurricanes and insects the size of cats.

ignore all meme flags

Apart from bacteria, the total live biomass on Earth is about 560 billion tonnes C,[1] and the total annual primary production of biomass is just over 100 billion tonnes C/yr.[5] The total live biomass of bacteria may be as much as that of plants and animals[6] or may be much less.[7] The total amount of DNA base pairs on Earth, as a possible approximation of global biodiversity, is estimated at 5.0 x 1037, and weighs 50 billion tonnes.[8] In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 TtC (trillion tons of carbon).[9]

since the '70s and the first oil crisis. They said peak oil would be in the '90s and we would be dry by the 21th century. Gas is Water + Carbon - put those under extreme pressure and heat and you get oil.

no Le 97% meme? disappoint

I always thought it was just compressed and decomposed organic matter from the surface, literal fossils, that's why they're called fossil fuels right?

If it is some fluid from deep in the Earth then obviously we've been badly lied to.

If this really is true, this is incredibly dangerous. It means we can keep burning and burning and burning, and there's no limit to the amount of Carbon introduced to the upper ecosystem.

I don't believe in global warming nonsense, but in this scenario with no endpoint, there would indeed be huge consequences

Makes more sense than the idea that billions of plants and animals died in the Arctic to create oil for us.

Saudi arabia ALONE could fuel the whole planet daily for 72 years before it runs out. We really have enough of the stuff for a few hundred years so I don't understand what the fuss is all about.

I'm not trying to meme, I'm deadly serious

Oil comes from plankton, coal comes from plants
Also look up "Technically Recoverable Oil," it explains reserve growth.

There's a funny Congressional report from the 1920s that says there were only 10 years of oil left in the US.

You are dumb as a rock.

Because even the planet agrees with Hitler. It has to gas the Jews, racewar now.

The greenhouse effect is far more effected by methane than CO2, and methane is produced by the agricultural industry in incalculable quantities worldwide.

If you seriously care about global warming you must attack mass agriculture first, methane is 30x more potent an insulator than CO2, methane will kill us all far sooner than CO2 ever could.

>Saudi arabia ALONE could fuel the whole planet daily for 72 years before it runs out. We really have enough of the stuff for a few hundred years so I don't understand what the fuss is all about.
We also have enough coal for 1,000 years easily.

The problem is, is that it's destructive and damages the environment. We need to move away from it. Saudi Arabia is even investing in alternative energy. They plan to just leave the oil in the ground.

methane is a very reactive molecule that doesn't last long in the open environment. CO2 is very stable, lasts forever

it's true that methane is a stronger absorber than CO2, but the overall forcing on the climate by CO2 is considerably larger, simply because the concentration of it is much higher compared to methane

Why haven't we made things that run on poo ? its organic, its explosive, its the logic next step.

Shh there are indians browsing this board

Did you know that under 200ppm CO2 majority of plants die of starvation?
Did you know the planet is currently barely reaching 400ppm?
Did you know there is evidence that the planet had more than 7000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere,long before even homo erectus arrived in the evolution?

>If you seriously care about global warming you must attack mass agriculture first,
cutting down trees causes more methane than anything in agriculture. They leave the stumps that termites eat and the termites produce shit tons of methane. Also the trees lose their ability as a carbon sink.

CO2 is still a problem because of its abundance.

>>ancap

Yeah, funny you mention that, I read about that in Basic Economics.

Aren't increased concetrations of CO2 going to lead to an explosion of plant life? Which in turn will transform it back into oxygen? Which solves the problem by itself.

So thats how they become a superpower by 2020...

>Did you know there is evidence that the planet had more than 7000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere,long before even homo erectus arrived in the evolution?
And that wasn't the environment we evolved in. The human races doesn't want to face a "great extinction event" like in the past. they were really really bad.

the first two are incorrect and the third one is just a random factoid with no point

They are already a superpooer.

Yes man,CO2 will make humans extinct if we dont start paying taxes for breathing.

The third point is that the earth has been able to handle a much higher CO2 level than the current one.

>Aren't increased concetrations of CO2 going to lead to an explosion of plant life?
No necessarily. Human beings have a tenancy to remove too many trees to make a long lasting impact. A world of hot, sandy deserts isn't ideal for plant growth. We've done as much damage in recent history.

Pic related. Imagine this but worse.

>they plan to leave the oil in the ground
environmentalism must be some kind of mental illness.

How did they get so many times higher in the past than today without burning fossil fuels tho?

When Africa moves to Europe because it's cooler, you'll start caring. Surprised you haven't realized by now.

It makes much more sense that leftover organic material inside crude oil is being picked up as oil pushes its way to the surface.

Deforestation is often caused directly by the influence of mass agriculture, especially in South America. Agriculture in my opinion is becoming a greater problem than oil and gas because NOBODY is trying to stop it, whereas many countries are taking great initiative (especially China and India, two very big CO2 producers) to reduce their carbon footprint.

I mean what is happening in places like Brazil should be considered a crime against humanity, clear-cutting forests so big agriculture has more space for cattle, which produce immense quantities of methane.

It's not just about that, petro products are key in a ton of industries including tech and solar. We risk burning up a limited resource and in turn fucking ourselves out of strategic resources for industry.

Oil for energy is long term the stupidest choice. It's like putting our extremely limited helium resource into balloons. Which we do.

mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

it's known that increased CO2 concentration enhances terrestrial photosynthesis (a doubling of CO2 concentrations will increase terrestrial primary production by ~27%)
but we know that this vegetational biophysical negative feedback isn't able to cancel the CO2 input, because we can observe instances of sudden carbon injection in the paleoclimate record - and the effects of those hung around for 200 000 years

But they do. You should watch the markets more, dumbass. Saudi Arabia has a long term plan because they want long term power.

>the science is settled, 600ppm of CO2 will cause a global extinction of homosapiens.
the memes fucking write themselves

what do you mean with "handle"?

lel

That's why thermal depolymerization works

Let's just stop driving then

Meaning the earth isn't going to turn into Venus no matter what the Chicken Little earth worshipers who want to save the world through taxation and control want you to believe.

Study geology. The atmosphere changes.

But you don't want to live in a Permian-Triassic level extinction event.

>synthetically

Using what as a precursor? I mean that's the thing, Petroleum is the best source of organic precursors to work with since you already have the hydrocarbon chains to work with and just use reactions to add functional groups.

Sure thing,dumbass.

I do read the news and saudi arabia is planning to sell saudi aramco on the NYSE (or LSE they haevn't decided). Are the shareholders of saudi aramco going to be OK with leaving the oil in the ground? Yeah nah. you have to go back

You can pull all of the carbon created from fossil fuels right out of the air, and even more effectively from seawater. In order to create energy dense hydrocarbons with this extracted carbon - split H2O to obtain pure O2 and H. Then it is simply a matter of applying the enormous amount of energy required to create hydrocarbons from these elements.

Too bad we don't have enough spare energy to go around. You wouldn't burn gas and coal in a power plant just to create more hydrocarbons. You would not break even given the energy expended and final energy produced.

How about nuclear? That is a great idea, except that uranium is about as rare as gold and platinum. There are not a lot of nuclear power plants.

So we need a huge source of energy that is not based on carbon that can be used to power the extraction of carbon, electrolysis of H2O, provide the power to convert the products into hydrocarbons. It would also be great if, while it was doing all of this, this energy source was so energy dense and so widely available that it could replace and then even exceed current energy production. And imagine if it was cheap.

I give you the LFTR reactor. Thorium. Why hasn't the government made this a priority Sup Forums?

youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

All your earth are belong to us.

Fossil fuels come from fossils.

Fossil fuel beds exist in places that were ancient coral reefs and rainforests at one point in time.

Animals and fungi ultimately rely on plants, plants build themselves with carbon from CO2.

When biomass dies and gets pushed underground, after thousands of years, it breaks down into molecules like octane and fossilizes into rocks like coal.


Thinking for yourself doesn't mean you believe every new bit of bull shit you hear

This shit was debunked by the Soviets a long, long time ago

In my country at least there's more trees right now than 30 years ago, despite massive deforestation.

if you would actually bother to look at what is written by experts who dedicate their lifes to the study of this, you would find that they have been saying for years that no plausible human forcing would be able to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect

>I give you the LFTR reactor. Thorium. Why hasn't the government made this a priority Sup Forums?
It would put every other energy industry out of business, and the lobbyists won't stand for it.

>did you know that the planet had more carbon in the atmosphere at a time when the environment likely wouldn't have been suitable for us?

No shit.

>debunked by communist empire that promoted lysenkoism.
I think I'll get my science from actual ethical people, not communists, thank you.

Titan has oceans of gasoline and methane. Oil pools to the surface. I don't recall any dinosaurs being discovered there.

Sorry too late for second guessing. the science is settled.

...

Nice (((quads)))