Is green energy the only renewable energy?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I get the routine. Green energy, at a basic level, is considered renewable because all of its sources are naturally recurring energy sources: the sun, wind, water, and geothermal.

However, what is not renewable about petroleum, clearly, not what one would define as green energy?Or is it? What is not natural about petroleum? We don't make it. We process it. However, don't we do the same with wind and water, et al? Which of all those natural energy sources is not processed to convert the energy from whatever its original power to electrical power?

What is not natural about petroleum? It's even organic. How natural is that?

In the 50s, King Hubbard announced that within 20 years, we wold reach a criss mode because that future would signal our peak available crude source. From then, on, our available quantity of oil reserves would begin to deplete. He was wrong, but not without causing a simulated oil crisis in the 70s. At the time, I was feeding my 6.5-litre, 350 BHP 1968 GTO with 42-cent premium petrol. By the time the "crisis" concluded, it was near a dollar, and it never looked back. However, today, our reserves are bigger than ever. The fact is, we don't know how much of the stuff we have in reserve, because the earth keeps making it, 24/7, and has ever since organic creatures, animal and plant, began dying and decomposing, and it will continue as long as there is life on earth. So, what's not renewable about petroleum? 
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
So where currently are new reserves of crude oil being lay down.
#3
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
What's not renewable about petroleum? 

The fact that it cannot be renewed. If it could be renewed it would be considered renewable.

The Earth is not creating new deposits on the timescales that human civilization exists in. The deposits which currently exist were created on geologic timescales (probably by the decomposition of living organisms).

We are finding new deposits as technology advances but that can only last as long as there are more deposits to find, which is obviously not something that can continue indefinitely due to the fact that there is a finite amount of deposits.
Topic's author
#4
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
In the US, among hundreds of other places. Everywhere there is a pocket underground into which organic material can decay and seep. The earth is not a solid mass of rock and molten rock; that ought to be abundantly clear. It's swiss cheese. Think about how planets are formed. The asteroid belt is a good example of the raw material used. Creation was not an event of zapping nothing into existence; it was organizing a chaos of raw material together.

As long as there is life on earth, there will; be petroleum crude.
Topic's author
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The Earth is not creating new deposits on the timescales that human civilization exists in. 
How many billions of years of years, or even just hundreds of millions of years of life on earth before humans existed has the earth been producing petroleum crude, never used until our rudimentary discovery of ground-exposed pitch was discovered to be a fuel? Human life is less than just 100M years. That leaves billions of years; more than 3B, and change, when that crude is entirely unused, but increasing in volume.

If it takes a million years to produce petroleum crude from the moment of death of every living thing, plant and animal, on earth, all over the earth, that's a lot of crude produced.

Do you really think we've depleted the supply? Let alone continuing to add to the supply ever since, and evermore. That's a windbag suggestion that might illuminate a lightbulb for a while.

The alternative, what is really going on, as I suggest, is a continuously renewable supply to be tapped. 2.9B years of production before we ever began to use it, and that's a maximum suggestion of when our use began. We haven't scratched the surface of the crude available in reserve. And it continues to produce even as we are using it. That's called renewable. The orginal renewable.
#6
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you really think we've depleted the supply?

Do you really think the earth is flat?
Topic's author
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nope. I've been high enough in the air to know it is not. And I've been long enough distance in the air around the world to know it is not.
Seems to me, a round earth will contain more crude than a flat earth of the same area as the sphere.
#8
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Nope.

And you never indicated that you did believe the Earth was flat, so it was silly of me to ask eh? Well there you have the answer to your question I responded to in post 6.
Topic's author
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No prob. Still friends. We'll carry on.

12 days later

#10
DrSpy
DrSpy's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 20
0
0
2
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
0
0
2
Renewable is the term.    What is an acceptable time period for renewal?  Let's look at a bog or a marsh.  It is generally accepted that it takes millions of years to for oil, coal or other petroleums to be created from biomass.  The carbon in oil/gas etc is not part of the regular carbon cycle.

Therefore when you extract it from the ground and burn it, you are adding carbon back to the environment that it has not seen for millions of years.

Burn grass, it produces  C0, C02, CH4, etc etc. etc.  Grow plants, and they take in CO2 and use the carbon to make the structure, which you burn, turns into the gasses I mentioned.....  carbon cycle.  
Topic's author
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DrSpy
And since that carbon has already been renewing for a billion years, at least, does it matter the length of time that renewal occupies. We'll never catch up, at least not in the time new technology will replace petroleum as a fuel, as a lubricant, and a source of plastic fabrication?
#12
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,249
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
From 1969 to 2018 the world used about 1.3 trillion barrels of crude oil. In 2018 it was estimated that the world had a reserve of 1.7297 trillion barrels left.

Sources:


Consider, first of all, that the world's population roughly doubled during this time. But increase in demand for electricity far outpaced population growth when you take into account the skyrocketing economic growth of the Third World and rise of Third World middle classes. So we'd naturally expect consumption in 2018 to be several times higher than in 1969. It's not unreasonable to assume that in another 50 years we'd consume *at least* 1.7297 trillion barrels worth of crude oil, if not several times that.

Consider that the world's had millions of years to convert decaying organic matter into fuel prior to the Industrial Revolution. We went through something like 40% of that in just 50 years, and we'll easily go through the rest in another 50. Are you saying that the world's going to do millions of years worth of natural fuel creation in just 50 years?

Think about the impact of even temporary fuel shortages, like the 1970s Arab Oil Embargo (which I'm assuming you lived through and remember). The world is much more dependent on oil today than it was back then. Are you saying we can live like they did during the Arab Oil Embargo for millions of years while we wait for the planet to play catch up?

(While it's true that the amount in "discovered" reserves is increasing over time, this simply means technology is improving and allowing us to find deposits we didn't know existed before. That doesn't mean these deposits came into existence in the past 50 years but only that we're only now discovering them. Technology's gaining at an exponential rate, meaning we'll eventually be at the point where we can find all existing deposits. In fact, we might very nearly be at that point already. Once this happens, oil reserves will only go down after that.)
Topic's author
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Swagnarok
In 2018 it was estimated that the world had a reserve of 1.7297 trillion barrels left.
Yes, and in the 50's, King Hubbard said we had reserves to last another 20 years. Granted, the scale of measurement changes, but what has also changed is the ability to make more valid guesses, but, in the end, that is the status of "reserves;" a guess.

Consider that the world's had millions of years to convert decaying organic matter into fuel prior to the Industrial Revolution. We went through something like 40% of that in just 50 years, and we'll easily go through the rest in another 50
Another guess. Wouldn't bet the farm on it, though.

Think about the impact of even temporary fuel shortages, like the 1970s Arab Oil Embargo
Yes, I went through it. I thought at the time, and, given the years since to contemplate, I hold with my original deduction that the crisis was manufactured. We had, then, no idea the volume of our reserves in the ground, and King Hubbard was obviously way off base. It was, after all, just a money grab by the Arab Oil Embargo and not a true lack of reserves. We could have been number 1 in oil production, and, therefore, energy independent then, not just now. We just did not have the vision for it, and that's entirely on us.

And while you acknowledge our capability, by tech, to improve out estimation, I also believe that out tech growth will, in time, relieve our current reliance on petroleum in discover of other energy-producing media.
#14
DrSpy
DrSpy's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 20
0
0
2
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
0
0
2
@fauxlaw.  I am less concerned about the rate of use then I am the impact of use.

The carbon cycle is very delicate, and it is accepted that we as humans have pushed the carbon cycle beyond what it would naturally go.  Plus we have compromised the carbon cycle with deforestations, wood being an exceptionally dense carbon store.

Oil and coal are denser carbon stores, and whilst there is a chance for them to renew, that chance is very low considering the footprint we have put on the planet, removing virtually all locations where natural coal and oil could form.

Need breeds ingenuity and unless it becomes cost-effective to invest in the research and technology, people won't do it.

So the question begs, is morality related to an individual's ecological behavior..  Perhaps a question pointed closer to you fauxlaw would be "Would god expect people to be ecologically sound."


Topic's author
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DrSpy
we as humans have pushed the carbon cycle beyond what it would naturally go.

Have we? Do we know what the acceptable level of CO2 in the atmosphere is? According to NASA Earth Observatory,
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle we are at the highest level of atmospheric CO2 in 2M years, and the highest atmospheric methane in 650K years. Both ranges of these GHGs are much less than the short carbon cycle [100 - 230M years], and much higher than the fast carbon cycle [>100 years]. And 85% of atmospheric C02, according to the same source, is absorbed by the oceans. And, by the same source, well before 2M years, placental mammals with systems identical to ours evolved 140M years ago. They saw, and survived one short carbon cycle, and 140M years of long cycles, and survived their higher concentrations of both GHG gasses by Darwin's wonderful evolution theory known as.... adaptation. Are we less likely to adapt than our placental ancestors? What, with our tech? Try again, my friend. At least I have a valid source for my side. Yours? Your sock puppet?
#16
DrSpy
DrSpy's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 20
0
0
2
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
0
0
2
-->
@fauxlaw
If you want to initiate a debate on this topic and invite me I will review and answer.

I will not, however, respond to a friendly forum with statements like "Your Sock Puppet"



Topic's author
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DrSpy
I am merely suggesting your source for the statement highlighted is flawed, because it does not agree with a credible source and we do not need incredible statements made to explain what is going on with the alleged climate debacle. It speaks of discrediting what science there is. No statement such as that ought to be made without a credible source to back it. You know better than that, so don't hurl your "friendly forum" to me. Friendly, it should be, but it should also be of some level of scholarship. After all, it is not a supporting argument for a science that alleges to be "in."
Topic's author
#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DrSpy
By the way, I do not engage closed debates [that is, designating an opponent] because there is no allowance for commentary preceding the debate in a closed debate format. In open format, commentary is allowed. I often use that feature to discuss definitions, etc. so they are agreed upon before the debate begins, and avoids using valuable argument space to debate argument and rebuttal. That is a flaw the moderators acknowledge, but the site owner appears indifferent to doing something about it. 
#19
DrSpy
DrSpy's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 20
0
0
2
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
0
0
2
I did not realize that everything stated in a forum needed to be qualified and quantified.   I will gladly debate the concept of oil as renewable with you.  A forum is no the venue.  Comments like "Sock Puppet" are inappropriate conduct.

#20
DrSpy
DrSpy's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 20
0
0
2
DrSpy's avatar
DrSpy
0
0
2
-->
@fauxlaw
I have no problem having an open period to hash out the definitions.


#21
Envisage
Envisage's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 48
0
0
2
Envisage's avatar
Envisage
0
0
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Did you know that pretty much all the coal that exists now was all made about the same time, ~300 million years ago. Back when the structures that first formed the "woody" structures of trees (e.g. lignin) were first evolved. Before microbes had figured out how to digest it. Hardly any new coal has been produced since (when you date the layers that contain them, few date any later than this).

For oil its less clear cut, but the basic fact here is that we consume oil and gas several orders of magnitude faster than it forms.

So we group these, along with Uranium into the non-renewables, because for all intents and purposes, they simply aren't being renewed.
Topic's author
#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DrSpy
I apologize for the sock puppet. You must understand, I am livid about the lack of sourcing ain any conversation, debater or forum. We spend too much time talking out of our hats instead of out of our brain. And if our brain cannot argue a point with credibility, sourcing is our saving grace, but it had better be deeper than Wiki, which is nothing but a clearing house, and not the manufacturer of knowledge. The hat is a sock puppet; that's about all it's worth. Sorry to offend, but I believe taking offense is the unwritten right of the 1A; we can be offended, but censure is not the answer to resolve it. I'm not saying you are the sock puppet; just that a sock puppet is an unqualified source.

As for the debate, I'm all for it. However, since an arranged debate has not access to commentary to work out definitions, for example, it disadvantages the non-instigator. I suggest we use PM to work out details like definitiosn, then I'll launch a debate. Fair enough?
Topic's author
#23
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Envisage
Did you know that pretty much all the coal that exists now was all made about the same time,

Read the following article, and then tell me which isotope of carbon atoms were used in the dating to which you refer of either coal or oil. 
Not to mention that 300M years is a minor fraction of time that organic materials have died and decomposed since the earth was formed and endowed with living creatures, plant and animal - what, some 4B years? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ 

the basic fact here is that we consume oil and gas several orders of magnitude faster than it forms.
Nice claim. Cite your source. And that source better link to hard numbers of the length of time it takes to convert organic materials to available fossil fuel against the global demand for them on an annual basis, because, just by your comment, it sounds an awful lot like a climate-change alarmist's raison d'dêtre.


several orders of magnitude

Your "orders of magnitude" figure this way: the earth is estimated to be 4.5B years old.  Life on earth is estimated to have begun 4B years ago. https://www.livescience.com/57942-what-was-first-life-on-earth.html Life on earth is estimated to have begun about 4B years ago [same source] Hint: "woody structures] are not required to begin decomposition of organic material. https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Petroleum_1.html. For example, your "orders of magnitude" in the renewable decomposition of organic material to fossil fuel of 300M years is, by "OOM" 13.3 times less than the length of time life has been on earth [4B years - see citation above]]


So we group these, along with Uranium into the non-renewables,

"we" who? What are "we's" credentials? Your argument is a circular reference, and such are not credible.
#24
Envisage
Envisage's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 48
0
0
2
Envisage's avatar
Envisage
0
0
2
I cited exactly as much as you did in your OP.

You don't use carbon isotopes to date coal, 300M years is far beyond the capabilities of 14-C (which maxes out at ~40,000 years, around 70,000 if using really high end gear, and with anally careful sample preparation, transport and storage), you need to date the strata you find coal in.

300M years, as in, all the coal was made around this time ago. None was made before, and none made since.

Which is an oversimplification, the bottom line is, new coal isn't being formed. That being said there are.probably deposits for several hundred years at our current consumption rate, oil and gas will squeeze much sooner than coal will.




Topic's author
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Envisage
"Why was most of the Earth’s coal made all at once?" The title of an article you should read instead of believing the crap you've been fed by your "enlighted" teachers. We once knew these things, but the green new deal has re-educated. Not. However, the first lines of the article set you straight.

"Question: Why did so much of the world’s coal form during the geologic period we now call the Carboniferous?
Answer: Large tree-like plants evolved before fungi evolved the ability to break down the fibrous lignin that helped give the plants structure. With nothing to make them decay, their remains were free to pile up and yield thick coal deposits.

"It’s a neat story, but, a new study led by Stanford’s Matthew Nelsen argues, it’s not true." 

And where, exactly, did I mention C-14 dating? You did, not me.