Deep Sea, Arctic May Hold World's Largest Fuel Supply, Experts Say - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 03-07-2007, 06:40 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...y-methane.html

Quote:

The energy source of the future may lie beneath the ocean floor and under Arctic permafrost, scientists say.

Both places are sources of gas hydrates, strange icelike substances that trap methane—the primary component of natural gas.

"It's not frozen gas," explained Timothy Collett of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver. "It's [formed] from the interaction of gas and water."

The hydrates were discovered in 1983, and no one knows how many of them exist.

But there appear to be enough hydrates to represent a larger energy source than all of the word's gas, oil, and coal combined, Collett said at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Denver, Colorado, on March 5.

Since there are the equalivent of 4 trillions barrels of oil in the tar sands in Utah and Colorado alone that is a heck of a lot of energy sound like it may be 'renewable in the snese that is is produced in an ongoing process.

wistahpatsfan · 03-07-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...y-methane.html

Since there are the equalivent of 4 trillions barrels of oil in the tar sands in Utah and Colorado alone that is a heck of a lot of energy sound like it may be 'renewable in the snese that is is produced in an ongoing process.

How do you figure it's "renewable"? The quote says it's being created from local material that is a finite quantity. While it's being made now, there is only so much of it. The term "renewable" refers to geothermal, hydro, solar and wind source energy. While this may look promising, I agree, it is not renewable.

***patsfan13*** · 03-07-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

How do you figure it's "renewable"? The quote says it's being created from local material that is a finite quantity. While it's being made now, there is only so much of it. The term "renewable" refers to geothermal, hydro, solar and wind source energy. While this may look promising, I agree, it is not renewable.

The matrial that creates it is the result of organic processes, from what I can see from the article.

Pujo · 03-07-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The matrial that creates it is the result of organic processes, from what I can see from the article.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are all created by organic processes, too, but they're not renewable because the process takes so long. I don't see anything about this actually being renewable, though there being a lot of it might be the next best thing.

***patsfan13*** · 03-07-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

Coal, oil, and natural gas are all created by organic processes, too, but they're not renewable because the process takes so long. I don't see anything about this actually being renewable, though there being a lot of it might be the next best thing.

I haven't looked to see how long the process takes.

The Russians think oil is created in an anaerobic process and not from dinosaurs. A guy did the math on the numer of dinosaurs required to create the amount of oil that exists (not to mention coal and other petrochemicals the numbers are astronomical). Still if numbers suggested here are staggering.

Pujo · 03-07-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

I haven't looked to see how long the process takes.

The Russians think oil is created in an anaerobic process and not from dinosaurs. A guy did the math on the numer of dinosaurs required to create the amount of oil that exists (not to mention coal and other petrochemicals the numbers are astronomical). Still if numbers suggested here are staggering.

The source of oil (nor whether the process was aerobic or anaerobic) isn't relevant to it being an organic compound (and hence coming from an organic process). An organic compound is a compound with carbon-hydrogen bonds (or sometimes carbon-fluorine or other similar bonds). Oil's a hydrocarbon, so is considered organic. It doesn't mean that its precursor had to have been organic (Friedrich Wohler was the first to create organic compounds from non-organic materials in the 1800's), but the result is most certainly organic.

By the way, I've never heard anyone say that oil came from dinosaurs. The biogenic theory says that oil came from plankton and algae (while plants produced coal). The abiogenic theory says oil comes from carbon deposits, but those were never thought to be renewable.

***patsfan13*** · 03-07-2007, 10:14 PM

Pujo, I misspoke I meant to refer to theories of non organic oil production, he is a link describing the theory and some references. Tjis is an area I find interesting but dion't really understand.

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug25/articles7.htm