Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

In article <Xns964641AC76568WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

> >> http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000E9FDF-CBC1-1C71
> >> - 9EB7809EC588F2D7
> >> [quote]
> >> there is not nearly enough fossil fuel to account for the atmospheric
> >> oxygen inventory. But there is a lot more organic matter buried in the
> >> crust in the form of finely disseminated particles incorporated in
> >> shales and limestones.
> >> [unquote]
> >
> > ***{Oil shales and tar sands, for more than a hundred years, were not
> > considered part of reserves, because the material they contained could
> > not be extracted at a profit. In recent years, however, new technologies
> > have been developed that have converted vast stocks of previously
> > submarginal deposits of such material into reserves, and there is every
> > reason to expect that future technologies will continue to add to
> > reserves in the same way. Bottom line: politicians, in the final
> > analysis, are the only thing standing between the engineers and the oil.
> > --MJ}***
>
> There is a point where it takes more energy to get the fuel than is
> recovered by burning the fuel.

***{In a market economy, the measure of when that point has been reached
is the availability of profit. If more energy must be expended to
extract, process, and transport fuel to the end user than is available
when the fuel is burned, the deposits will be submarginal, and will not
be counted as reserves. As noted previously, however, the advancement of
technology constantly lowers the real costs of extraction, processing,
and transportation, save those inflicted by government, and the result
is that it is never possible to argue persuasively that *any* deposits
that are presently submarginal will not become reserves--extractable at
a profit--in the future. To make such a judgment is an instance of the
fallacy of static thinking, of assuming that future technology will be
no better than present technology, hence that future real costs will be
no lower than present real costs. Such thinking has caused those who
have predicted an imminent end to the age of oil to be uniformly wrong,
over and over and over again, for more than 100 years. Sure, a day will
come when the extraction of oil on Earth will be over, but that day will
arrive at a moment no one can anticipate today, for reasons that will be
utterly inexplicable to all of us. And it could be 75,000, or 100,000,
or 150,000 years in the future. There is no evidence now that such a day
is going to arrive in the lifetime of anyone living, or in the lifetimes
of the grandchildren of anyone now living, for that matter. Practically
speaking, as I have said repeatedly, the politicians are the only thing
standing between the engineers and the oil. Result: if you don't like
the sticker shock the next time you fill up your tank, direct your anger
at its appropriate target: at the labyrinthine regulations, hidden
taxes, and other impediments which politicians in America and elsewhere
in the world, have set up as an obstacle course, to prevent the
engineers from getting at the oil. --MJ}***

> Past this point, the recovery is only worth while if one wants the reduced
> carbon for some other purpose, like making plastics, etc. BTW, that is what
> we should be doing with it now, not burning it.

***{I most emphatically disagree. Forming it into plastics is OK, but we
also need to burn as much hydrocarbon fuel as we can, because we live on
a planet that is deficient in CO2. If we don't burn it, the greenbelt
will not have the carbon it needs to expand as we approach the midpoint
of the present interglacial, and in that case the long term cyclical
warming of the Earth, which is due to the Milankovitch and related
astronomical cycles rather than to human induced "global warming," will
raise sea levels roughly another 5 meters, flooding most of the great
cities of the world. Man didn't cause the rising sea levels that
accompanied the previous interglacial, and he won't be the cause of the
rise that will accompany the present one, either. He can, however,
prevent the sea level from rising, if he burns enough hydrocarbon fuel.
That's why the Kyoto accord and all the other blather about "global
warming" is totally wrong, typically ass-backwards, self-defeating,
environmentalist rubbish, like the murderous ban of DDT, which kills an
innocent child somewhere on Earth every 10 seconds, and virtually every
other bovine, drooling stupidity they have perpetrated or attempted to
perpetrate over the years. --MJ}***

[snip]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Olson: New Technology, Old Technology, and the Future
    ... New Technology, Old Technology, and the Future ... even though it is heavily manipulated by oil companies ... price of gas was only a small part of the total lifecycle cost of a car or ... is the price of fuel a significant part of the cost of the ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • How Chevron spins black gold
    ... As Big Oil celebrates a huge victory in California, ... By Saheli S.R. Datta, Business 2.0 Magazine writer-reporter ... But at Chevron, chief technology officer Don ... THE FUEL CELL: Chevron's Don Paul sees hydrogen-burning buses as part ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • The New "Oil"--Israeli Scientist at Forefront of A Revolution
    ... department technology around the world, but ALSO the awareness that reliance ... comprised of 1/4 oil) as the next wave of fuel. ... When Dr. Isaac Berzin talks about algae, ...
    (uk.religion.islam)
  • Water to Hydrogen scam - Jail for Patrick Kelly
    ... Kelly Sentenced for Stealing Funds Invested in Bogus Fuel Technology Venture ... Fuel Cell Technologies to purchase eight cars in his own name. ... An investigation by the Division of Criminal Justice determined that between November ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: (non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
    ... >> Where Technology is Failing Boaters ... >> boats, as well as an increasing number of cars and trucks, would be ... >> revolutionized navigation for most boaters. ... >> is the volatile price of fossil fuel. ...
    (rec.boats)