Cost of petrol / Gasoline



dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


Environmentalism IS a religion... I don't define the words... I didn't and DON'T (normally) discuss religion on forums. YOU brought the religion (environmentalism) onto the forum.

I have YET to know of anyone who ever found a fossil... in natural gas. The term comes from the 1600's because so many fossils could be found in coal. Fossil fuel was meant to be a term that covered all the different names (and grades) for coal. Only the faithful religious call gas and oil fossil fuels.

Wow.... I am impressed that you have more sway and status in the environmental circles than Al Gore! Al says environmentalism must be accepted on faith.... but Mr Swampy knows better? I haven't seen your movie(s) or read of your awards in the movement... yet. I think I'll go with Al Gores idea! Just until you are also recognized as an leader in the religion... like Mr Gore.
Dave, you're certainly the one that brought religion into the "debate" about environmentalism. It's a clever but thinly-deguised attempt to avoid discussing scientific facts. The claim that the term "fossil fuel" is a code word of some sort used by those in an environmental conspricy is a good example of your strange attempts at re-direction and redefinition. After checking a few online dictionaries, I found that the term fossil fuel is defined exactly as I meant to use it, ie, if refers to the hydrocarbon fuels that power the modern world, namely coal, oil and natural gas. There's no mention of religious meanings in any dictionary I've found so far, or on Wikipedia's comprehensive entry. Not sure how you make this connection, but it's one I don't understand.

Just to confirm, I checked the Shell Oil website and found they use the term as well. By way of example, here's the opening of a 2008 speech by a Shell exec:

"Since the marriage of fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine some hundred years ago, the fortunes of the energy and automotive industries have been tied together.
For the most part that marriage has been a force for good. But, along with the good, our products also have exacted social and environmental costs – costs that are increasingly unaffordable."
You might want to look up and read the rest of the speech....obviously it contains the views of tree-hugging environmentalists.

Again, I certainly don't worship Al Gore....no one said he was a climate or energy scientist. You seem to be fixated on Al Gore for some reason; again, a thin attempt at re-direction away from scientific facts.









Suppose you redefine words to mean whatever you want, or call environmentalism a religion, but that doesn't make it true. My conservation ethic and environmentalism have to do with science, not religion. Your thin attempt to redirect the debate away from science to "religious belief" is harmful, not helpful to determining the proper course of action for the future.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Here's an odd little fact: coal, oil, and natural gas were formed in the Carboniferous Period, at least the primary deposits were. The swampy **** on Earth's surface was covered by sedimentation and other processes; the swampy **** decayed to peat; and then under enough pressure and heat, the peat yielded coal, oil, and natural gas, all fossil fuels. Bringing Al Gore up is a great to deflect attention away from facts or the lack thereof. He was/is a spokesman, not a scientist. Total power produced from wind in the US in 2010 was 48.6 GW. In 2011, Europe's wind power producing capacity increased to 93.96 GW. Total US nuclear power capacity right now is about 101.4 GW. No one has yet to agree on how best to compare the value of either energy form in an objective manner, so what ends up happening is the sort of fact-deficient "discussion" that's going on in this thread. Nuclear power has its issues: a lot of high level and low level radioactive waste; national security concerns since all waste is now being stored on site (since there is no disposal site); and high cost. Wind power's issues are the space it requires and relatively low output per turbine. Wind doesn't have a waste issue on par with nuclear power. Likewise wind doesn't have the publicity problems, the licensing problems, or the construction expense of nuclear plants. Wind resources will exist so long as Earth has an atmosphere, water, and the Sun. I don't know the depth of fissionable resources. In the short term (20-30 years), any energy policy will likely have to include nuclear options as well as wind, solar, and possibly hydro power. Screw religion.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by alienator .

Here's an odd little fact: coal, oil, and natural gas were formed in the Carboniferous Period, at least the primary deposits were. The swampy **** on Earth's surface was covered by sedimentation and other processes; the swampy **** decayed to peat; and then under enough pressure and heat, the peat yielded coal, oil, and natural gas, all fossil fuels.
Bringing Al Gore up is a great to deflect attention away from facts or the lack thereof. He was/is a spokesman, not a scientist.
That is a neat little fact! You've pointed that fact out here on the forum before. Then... when I point out that those same (with the exception of coal) chemicals are formed on other planets without plants or other life forms... you have no answers? Are you saying you think God put them on other planets..... but used swampy **** and dinosaurs to make them on Earth? That doesn't make sense. I would think if swampy plants made the methane here... there must be swampy plants almost everywhere. Even asteroids (petro chemicals have been found on at least one asteroid).

Of course... you did forget to mention that virtually EVERYTHING decays. And we also know (a handy little fact) that iron (Earth has LOTS of iron) and some other minerals... when heated and compressed makes methane and such. Now THAT handy little fact would explain a whole bunch of stuff.

Of course... coal is a little bit different! All that extra carbon there [in coal].... almost certainly came from life forms. That explains why so many fossils are found in and around coal formations. Hence the old term... fossil fuel. Doesn't anyone read anymore?

Like it or hate it... Al Gore is the global Representative of the environmental movement... he is the leader. And... he invented a darn nice Internet too.

Of course gasoline [oil] prices are falling. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer [NY] assured his party that oil price would fall before and during the elections... right after his return from Middle East. It was on the news... I saw him say it. He did however.... fail to mention what deal he had made for this election favor.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by dhk2 .

Dave, you're certainly the one that brought religion into the "debate" about environmentalism. It's a clever but thinly-deguised attempt to avoid discussing scientific facts.
No... you're incorrect! I am fine with facts... but many people seem to think their feelings... or beliefs are facts. Facts do not have emotional attachments. Once people started posting feeling... I knew I had been sucked into another "who's God is the strongest, best God" debate.

Science can be discussed.... but trying to debate religions [and emotions aside... environmentalism IS a religion] is foolish. Earth worship (Earth, Wind, Water, Air) is the oldest religion of all. It is still somehow in our DNA. I have nothing against people practicing this ancient worship. But at least man-up and admit it. Or maybe do a little self searching... maybe these people just lack spiritual training and aren't really aware of what they're doing.

But it hasn't been up for debate for years! Al Gore the leader of the movement has announced.... environmentalism must be accepted not as science... but on faith. Environmentalism is a religion!
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Interesting... just one view of a collection of information... but worth reading and thinking about: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html

I was working in the Government when the announcement came down... that Life had been discovered on Mars! Less than a hour later... that statement had been pulled back. Currently in is not PC to explain that the chemical process creating the methane without life... is well known (from Earth). You could actually do the experiments in your kitchen or garage and see for yourself.... now that's science.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally Posted by dhk2 .

Aren't you quoting the prices per liter, not gallons?
/img/vbsmilies/smilies/redface.gif You're correct.
Those prices should read per litre, not per gallon.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


Environmentalism IS a religion... I don't define the words... I didn't and DON'T (normally) discuss religion on forums. YOU brought the religion (environmentalism) onto the forum.

I have YET to know of anyone who ever found a fossil... in natural gas. The term comes from the 1600's because so many fossils could be found in coal. Fossil fuel was meant to be a term that covered all the different names (and grades) for coal. Only the faithful religious call gas and oil fossil fuels.

Wow.... I am impressed that you have more sway and status in the environmental circles than Al Gore! Al says environmentalism must be accepted on faith.... but Mr Swampy knows better? I haven't seen your movie(s) or read of your awards in the movement... yet. I think I'll go with Al Gores idea! Just until you are also recognized as an leader in the religion... like Mr Gore.
Fossil fuels are fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[1] Fossil fuels contain high percentages of carbon and include coal, petroleum, and natural gas.[2] They range from volatile materials with low carbon:hydrogen ratios like methane, to liquid petroleum to nonvolatile materials composed of almost pure carbon, like anthracite coal. Methane can be found in hydrocarbon fields, alone, associated with oil, or in the form of methane clathrates. Fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants[3] by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over millions of years.[4] This biogenic theory was first introduced by Georg Agricola in 1556 and later by Mikhail Lomonosov in the 18th century.

I guess we should seperate environmentalism from environmentalists in this context.

Definition of ENVIRONMENTALIST
1: an advocate of environmentalism
2: one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution


Definition of ENVIRONMENTALISM
a theory that views environment rather than heredity as the important factor in the development and especially the cultural and intellectual development of an individual or group

... which has nothing to do with spewing polutants into the evironment.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
swampy1970 said:
.....what you said about fossil fuels......
That about sums it up, except that most of the fossil fuels on Earth--the large reservoirs we are tapping--were the result of things dead before the dinosaurs roamed and are essentially what used to be plant life. Of course things like gases--methane for instance--can come from other sources and processes, but those processes are not what generated the methane and other components typically found in natural gas. Religion is theological thing. Used otherwise, to "define" a point of view or a theory with which one doesn't agree, it's just weak effort at slurring others. Note that in this case, theory is used in the scientific sense; therefore, disagreement with a theory only has substance when said disagreement is in the form of valid science. You can't disagree with the Second Law of Thermodynamics without providing empirical proof or theoretical proof that stands up to scientific scrutiny (...which has yet to be done....).
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
limerickman said:
:oops:  You're correct. Those prices should read per litre, not per gallon.
Be careful throwing around those foreign metric units. 'mericans don't grok too well that dang system of units based on multiples of 10.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by alienator .


That about sums it up, except that most of the fossil fuels on Earth--the large reservoirs we are tapping--were the result of things dead before the dinosaurs roamed and are essentially what used to be plant life. Of course things like gases--methane for instance--can come from other sources and processes, but those processes are not what generated the methane and other components typically found in natural gas.
Yes... we all know of that theory. We learned that in elementary schools across America 50.... even 100 years ago. Children are still taught those stories... in government run American Schools. But some people still read. If you would have taken the 30 secs needed to read the story I posted from NASA.... you would had learned just a tad of the story... that adults know. But you resisted.

It wasn't magic dinosaurs **** that made swamp **** turn into natural gas (on Earth or on any other planet). Nor... is it likely that Earths swamps make natural gas on Mars (and nearly everywhere else we look). But there it is.... and NASA explains why. Quoting old theories that new science research is proving wrong.... is just silly!

I know you want to believe. I understand faith... as does Al Gore (your religious leader). I also admire your faith! You keep it up. never let anyone convert you with mere knowledge or logic... you guys keep up the faith. May mother Earth bless you.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

Fossil fuels are ....................
I am sorry swampy... a copy and paste of a Google search is lame.... even if your only 14. If you're actually (and that post really makes me wonder) an adult.... why not read the searches and some of the links involved, Not in an attempt to reinforce some sort of predetermined point of view... but actually learn something. Believe it or not... they even still make books.

Words evolve... that is true. Some people DO have a self interest to pose the idea that the term fossil fuel was ever used to mean something other than coal. That's silly.... I am older that that myself.... I KNOW BETTER. And... so does NASA.

You can post Google search results till the cows come home. But the truth is Al Gore is the leader of your movement... not you. Al Gore is grouping environmentalism with religion... not me.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Look guys this is simple.

Just as world leaders decided that energy was the new currency that controls everything... other people (good people... I was one of them) became concerned about the quality of air and water. That was half of a century ago. As some would seek power by ownership of energy production... others tried to grab power through the regulation and control of the same energy. Those of us interested in our air and water... became useful tools of a movement interested only in power and money.

For forty years now experts knew those sixteenth century theories about how coal was formed (there was no theory about oil or gas development back in the 1500's) didn't apply to oil or natural gas. Volcano gases proved that. The California gas fields prove that (unless you really think there is a giant pocket of plants and dino **** under the tectonic plates there).

Then research in space... found petrol fuels EVERYWHERE. And the science of environmentalism that says we must limit the use of these “limited resources” was stood on it's head. Brown (I think he name is) was found to be a fraud and the science of environmentalism died.

Al Gore had just won honors and mentions... what was he to do. He asked his followers to not give up. He admitted that there is no science in environmentalism... but asked that the movement be excepted on faith.

But here is the true punch line of this really sad joke. The true power is in atoms. Not nuclear atoms... all atoms. Yet the religion of NO ENERGY.... says we can't research new technology. We must run backwards to warming things with sunlight and catching the wind. Environmentalists are like energy Amish... stuck in a period of time.
 

dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .

Interesting... just one view of a collection of information... but worth reading and thinking about: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html

I was working in the Government when the announcement came down... that Life had been discovered on Mars! Less than a hour later... that statement had been pulled back. Currently in is not PC to explain that the chemical process creating the methane without life... is well known (from Earth). You could actually do the experiments in your kitchen or garage and see for yourself.... now that's science.
Dave, I did read the NASA link you posted. It's timely, considering the Curiosity rover (aka Mars Science Lab) is due to land on 5 Aug. It should provide alot more information about whether biological processes have played a role on Mars. I look forward to reading more.....NASA missions tend to get alot of front-page coverage in the local news for some reason. But I don't see any thing sinester or threatening in what the MSL finds, or anything that could affect the need to protect and conserve our scarce resources on Earth.

Can you explain why it's so significant to you that the methane on Mars (and other planets) was apparently created via geological processes (as well as some small portion of the methane on Earth)? And what's not polically correct about acknowledging this fact? I've got no problem with it at all, and I've already said I'm an environmentalist. Are you saying that since inorganic processes can create methane, there is no need to conserve it? Or that there is a virtually unlimited supply of methane on other planets, so that all we need to do is find a way to go get it?

Note, I'm not interested in changing your thinking, just curious about what it is. Just can't understand why it would be so important to know how the oil and natural gas we consume was created all those eons ago. Perhaps you think there is some kind of conspriracy by "big oil" to make it appear that the world's supply of oil will run out in 43 years (or 100 years, pick your own number).
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by dhk2 .

Can you explain why it's so significant to you that the methane on Mars (and other planets) was apparently created via geological processes (as well as some small portion of the methane on Earth)? And what's not polically correct about acknowledging this fact? I've got no problem with it at all, and I've already said I'm an environmentalist. Are you saying that since inorganic processes can create methane, there is no need to conserve it? Or that there is a virtually unlimited supply of methane on other planets, so that all we need to do is find a way to go get it?
Actually.... almost all methane used on Earth was [is being] created by geological processes. We know this as a fact... by looking at the processes on other planets. As well as by the locations which we are currently finding it.

Currently [as always...] decaying swampy **** as well as other dead life forms do make methane. That methane of course is lighter than air and it ends up decomposing in the atmosphere. That is what happens with the methane I make with my compose pile... and that is what happened millions of years ago with the dinosaur **** and swampy **** (don't forget... will still have plenty of swampy **** today too... and it isn't creating any reserves of gas... anywhere).

The methane gas (natural gas) trapped under the Earth's crust... was created.... under the Earth crust (by the same processes as on Mars and other planets).

Conservation.... a whole different topic... and one that may be deeper than most forums can get into. Virtually unlimited? I am not sure anything is, or could be...... limitless.

Once we accept the idea of iron (nearly our whole damn planet is iron) and other minerals being the source of petrol fuels on Earth... we are forced to realize that the idea of the boundaries and locations of petrol reserves was also wrong. All we need is the technology to tap the resource... from nearly any location on the planet.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by dhk2 .

Perhaps you think there is some kind of conspriracy by "big oil" to make it appear that the world's supply of oil will run out in 43 years (or 100 years, pick your own number).
I just caught that! You're referring to that old Internet hoax thing from several years ago aren't you. About some mysterious document.... and some known limited supply of oil. No. I don't normally fall for such hoaxes.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by jhuskey .

You managed to work in "Swampy ****" three times. Interesting!
I am sorry if that is wrong....? alienator used the term in his post (number 82). From now on should I use the term "pre-historic vegetation"? It really doesn't matter... does it?
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


I am sorry if that is wrong....? alienator used the term in his post (number 82). From now on should I use the term "pre-historic vegetation"? It really doesn't matter... does it?
Not unless Swampy considers it a back handed way to slam his posts.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by jhuskey .

Not unless Swampy considers it a back handed way to slam his posts.
Oh ****! I swear.... I never meant anything like that. I never even thought about that.

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Swampy 1970[/COLOR], sorry if my choice of words was offensive. Although I do disagree with [more than] a few people about much of the envirnomental beliefs [currently so popular]. I have great respect for both you and [COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]alienator[/COLOR]'s knowledge of bicycles and follow your posts. I have learned much from both of you.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


Oh ****! I swear.... I never meant anything like that. I never even thought about that.

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Swampy 1970[/COLOR], sorry if my choice of words was offensive. Although I do disagree with [more than] a few people about much of the envirnomental beliefs [currently so popular]. I have great respect for both you and [COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]alienator[/COLOR]'s knowledge of bicycles and follow your posts. I have learned much from both of you.
I didn't think so and that's why I found it to be humorous. Sure it wasn't one of those Fruedian slips?