Energy Outlook for Renewables. Pie in the sky or real?

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, Wastral said:

No one knows. 

 

And yet we have shale rock which varies between tar to rock to coal, the only difference?  Not quite cooked.  It is temperature/pressure dependent, not time.  You could hold it in place a Trillion years and it would not change.  Same goes for the oil we pump out of ground.  The temps/pressures from where we pump are NOT high enough to create the oil from existing hydrocarbons(water/methane) and once again, they could sit there for a trillion years and not change from methane to oil.  The source has to be deeper.  Much deeper where temps/pressures are higher than where we have been scooping up the surface stuff. 

How does it get that deep from the surface?  Simple answer?  It doesn't other than ONLY subduction of plate techtonics.  Which means the hydro carbons, oil, ng, coal, etc  are not plant life, but rather methane sequestered on ocean floor and subducted under continents till it migrates back to surface.  Of course proving this.... uh... we 1) cannot drill deep enough other than even the deepest wells on earth have water and methane in them and 2) requires the plates to move. 

One has to wonder how quickly plate techtonics move when pegged with a giant asteroid though...

I love the smell of abiotic oil theory last thing at night. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, PaLM said:

I'm new here and don't pretend to know a lot about geology or wind shear forces, but this whole string seems to have a lot of scientific posturing almost more than it has good info.

For starters, the first poster (Meredith) objected to a 77% renewables mix of energy (spending) through 2050, remarking that it will be 100% by 2050. Well it may or may not, who really knows, but the poster seemed to be objecting to the 77% number, which I don't get. It seems to me the 77% number is an average over the period to 2050, not a number AT 2050. So every argument back and forth after that seemed off to me, missing the point and starting a tangent discussion.

Then another self-appointed expert (Wastral) is telling us coal doesn't come from organic materials, even though the great majority of experts otherwise seem to believe it does. His explanation: Too few fossils embedded in coal. His answer: No one knows how coal is formed, but surely from ocean-bottom continental subduction processes. Again, I'm no rocket scientist, but in todays organic recycling processes, there don't seem to be a lot of fossils left over from the degradation/conversion of grass clippings and banana peels and dead squirrels into dirt. Nor do there seem to be a lot of fossils in peat or lignite or ... Not that there couldn't be fossil formation, but nice clean fossil formation probably happens under unique conditions not normally associated with high-organic-content, high-initial-water, long-time, high-pressure, anaerobic coal formation. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Furthermore, there are a heck of a lot of processes that have gone into the formation of this planet of ours over the millenia, including plenty of volcanoes, lava runs, geysers and hot springs, asteroid and particle hits, underwater activity - both shallow and deep, sinkhole and fissures, earthquake-induced surface cracking and shaking, deeper subduction activity, solar flares, floods, aerobic and anaerobic conditions, dry and arid conditions, gas and fume activity, etc. Entire cities in man's time have been buried without any sign of subduction or volcanic causes - what the heck, major duststorms? Floods? I personally have no trouble believing conventional theory that coal is formed from organic materials. It seems perfectly reasonable given the geological transition from peat through to anthracite. As long as it carries the tagline "theory" - as many things in science warrant - I'm ok with it.

Again, I'm no expert, but I do object to people sounding like they are stating facts when they are only stating opinion. Please be a tiny bit humble and helpful to the rest of us by differentiating clearly between opinion, conjecture and fact. And please, don't be an ass by trying to make others feel small because they aren't all knowing like you may be.

 Same "EXPERTS" who say there were no anaerobic bacteria to break down carbon life forms in peat bogs and why the Amazon or Congo rain forests swamps are not gigantic coal production zones are also the ones saying the beginning of life happened via anaerobic bacteria...   In case you can't figure this out: This is mutually exclusive.  Both cannot be correct. 

Same experts who all know bogs exist today at least in cool wet places and the age they give to "coal" is during Very hot period of earth history when the entire earth was covered in clouds/trees with high CO2 concentration.  

SO: There is this thing in life: reasoned logic; more than one thing can be true at the same time.  Science is not a zero sum game.  Vast difference between a log penetrating "millions of years of geology" AKA multiple layers of rock 100 feet thick which gets buried by ~heavy carbon bearing sand/rocks and maybe some peat which only requires some heat/pressure before turning into coal.  Still need source of carbon in the first place.  That carbon source?  Methane from subduction or inner mantle of the earth itself. We know methane is very permeable in rock strata. 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Wastral

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Wastral said:

 Same "EXPERTS" who say there were no anaerobic bacteria to break down carbon life forms in peat bogs and why the Amazon or Congo rain forests swamps are not gigantic coal production zones are also the ones saying the beginning of life happened via anaerobic bacteria...   In case you can't figure this out: This is mutually exclusive.  Both cannot be correct. 

Same experts who all know bogs exist today at least in cool wet places and the age they give to "coal" is during Very hot period of earth history when the entire earth was covered in clouds/trees with high CO2 concentration.  

SO: There is this thing in life: reasoned logic; more than one thing can be true at the same time.  Science is not a zero sum game.  Vast difference between a log penetrating "millions of years of geology" AKA multiple layers of rock 100 feet thick which gets buried by ~heavy carbon bearing sand/rocks and maybe some peat which only requires some heat/pressure before turning into coal.  Still need source of carbon in the first place.  That carbon source?  Methane from subduction or inner mantle of the earth itself. We know methane is very permeable in rock strata. 

Again you avoid the key point which is that fungi (not bacteria) capable of breaking down Lignin, the  main structural component of wood, had not evolved by the Carboniferous era. The organic material piled up forming the beds of organic matter that are eventually compressed and form the coal beds. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Again you avoid the key point which is that fungi (not bacteria) capable of breaking down Lignin, the  main structural component of wood, had not evolved by the Carboniferous era. The organic material piled up forming the beds of organic matter that are eventually compressed and form the coal beds. 

I addressed it.  You refused to accept the answer. Let me repeat for you.  Same anaerobic bacteria which supposedly started life according to "experts" also eat hydro carbons.  It is how they live.  You cannot have one, beginning of life without the other, eating organic materials(hydro carbons)

Only reason peat piles up for a short depth till it comes out of water and then dies out is due to low temperature so the bacteria cannot eat faster than the organic material is laid down. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

I addressed it.  You refused to accept the answer. Let me repeat for you.  Same anaerobic bacteria which supposedly started life according to "experts" also eat hydro carbons.  It is how they live.  You cannot have one, beginning of life without the other, eating organic materials(hydro carbons)

Only reason peat piles up for a short depth till it comes out of water and then dies out is due to low temperature so the bacteria cannot eat faster than the organic material is laid down. 

Anaerobic bacteria are extremely poor at digesting lignin. This is one reason why you only get a 10-15% volumetric reduction in Anaerobic digestate and that's mostly through digestion of starch, sugars and fatty acids. Its Fungi that do the heavy lifting when it comes to breaking down Lignin and if we wind the clock back 300 million years those fungi had not evolved.

 

[PaLM + 5]

On 7/16/2019 at 6:49 PM, Wastral said:

 Same "EXPERTS" who say there were no anaerobic bacteria to break down carbon life forms in peat bogs and why the Amazon or Congo rain forests swamps are not gigantic coal production zones are also the ones saying the beginning of life happened via anaerobic bacteria...   In case you can't figure this out: This is mutually exclusive.  Both cannot be correct. 

Same experts who all know bogs exist today at least in cool wet places and the age they give to "coal" is during Very hot period of earth history when the entire earth was covered in clouds/trees with high CO2 concentration.  

SO: There is this thing in life: reasoned logic; more than one thing can be true at the same time.  Science is not a zero sum game.  Vast difference between a log penetrating "millions of years of geology" AKA multiple layers of rock 100 feet thick which gets buried by ~heavy carbon bearing sand/rocks and maybe some peat which only requires some heat/pressure before turning into coal.  Still need source of carbon in the first place.  That carbon source?  Methane from subduction or inner mantle of the earth itself. We know methane is very permeable in rock strata. 

You ramble and spew big-word thought-poo with no point other than to make you look like you know more than someone else. I don't buy your limited logic at all, it's poor at best. In case you can't figure this out (and I doubt you can, as will be noted by your response): I'm done here.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, PaLM said:

You ramble and spew big-word thought-poo with no point other than to make you look like you know more than someone else. I don't buy your limited logic at all, it's poor at best. In case you can't figure this out (and I doubt you can, as will be noted by your response): I'm done here.

Why do you reply on a thread of speculation/discussion with authoritarianism? 

Coal has 2X the carbon content or more than the best peat.  The peat minerals, aluminum and silicon etc which are mostly insoluble in water sprouted legs and walked away did they?

If you are done, why start?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

44 minutes ago, Wastral said:

 

Coal has 2X the carbon content or more than the best peat.  The peat minerals, aluminum and silicon etc which are mostly insoluble in water sprouted legs and walked away did they?

Have you considered that maybe it was the carbon (which has several volatile and soluble forms) that moved moved away from the Al and Si, and in the process became concentrated?

Edited July 18, 2019 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

Why do you reply on a thread of speculation/discussion with authoritarianism? 

Coal has 2X the carbon content or more than the best peat.  The peat minerals, aluminum and silicon etc which are mostly insoluble in water sprouted legs and walked away did they?

If you are done, why start?

Aluminium Sulphate, one of the more common forms found in nature is very soluble. 

The process of Coalification involves the removal of water (along with gases and dissolved minerals) which explains the increase in Carbon content as the bulk of hydrogen and oxygen are removed from the peat mass as it turns into coal. 

[NickW + 2,714]

30 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Have you considered that maybe it was the carbon (which has several volatile and soluble forms) that moved moved away from the Al and Si, and in the process became concentrated?

 

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

Why do you reply on a thread of speculation/discussion with authoritarianism? 

Coal has 2X the carbon content or more than the best peat.  The peat minerals, aluminum and silicon etc which are mostly insoluble in water sprouted legs and walked away did they?

If you are done, why start?

 

Peat is mostly cellulose which has a formula of C6 H10 O5.

Remove most of that H & O and what are you left with?

[Meredith Poor + 883]

On 7/15/2019 at 8:15 PM, Wastral said:

Diaper hand holding....  Or take your own advice eh

PS: Rotational Forces go up by the square of velocity.  Then add extra dynamic loads, so, cubic function. 

There are adults that lurk in this discussion board. They click 'like' once in awhile but otherwise say nothing.