[nkt]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Closing it soon....

Does this mean we can flame the idiot now? Over a nice gas flame?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by nkt

Does this mean we can flame the idiot now? Over a nice gas flame?

Careful now, if you say who the idiot is I will have to ban you for violating our site rules.

[Chacmool]

Originally Posted by FrankM

There is slightly different content in a Space News article posted by Tormond.

Er... actually it's "Tormod"...

[nkt]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

Er... actually it's "Tormod"...

No, Tormod's not the idiot. I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader, and all that...

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Senior Research Chemist at Occidental Research, division of Occidental Petroleum, 1977-1979. What do you have, boy?

Russian Academy of Sciences
Sciences of Ukraine
Russian State University
Tatarstan

Giggle. Did you know Russians invented the lightbulb, the phonograph, movies... and Edison stole them all? GIGGLE.

You really looked like you were intelligent until that last line... was it you that blasted an earlier post based not on the article, but on the publication it was in? Didn't your bias there have more to do with the political and religious persuasion of the editor rather than the content? I have made the same mistake in the past, but I've grown up since then.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Queztacotl

In my knowledge:
Oil is a non-renewable source.
Non-Renewable sources are fossil fuels.
Therefore oil is a fossil fuel.
This is basic information, no point in discussing lies anymore, so pls stop it!!!

God is love;
Love is blind;
Stevie Wonder is blind;
Stevie Wonder is God? Wrong. Just as that is an erroneous syllogism, so is yours.

Is plutonium a renewable energy source? To my knowledge it is a material with a finite supply. After it is used it becomes something else...useful in the creation of armor piercing ammo, but no longer usable as a fuel source. Is it a fossil fuel? Not.

As I see it here, there is considerable debate about the origin of oil. Stomping your feet in a tantrum will not end the scientific debate going on here. Personally I agree with Hubbert, that we will reach a Peak in worldwide Oil production soon and we need to be looking for alternative energy sources NOW! It matters not where the oil originated from, it will run out someday.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Skippy

...Oil production soon and we need to be looking for alternative energy sources NOW! It matters not where the oil originated from, it will run out someday.

Sooner rather than later, would be my guess. And China's increasing demand for fuel as the country booms to challenge the US for the top spot on the totem pole, isn't helping either.

The issue is that as with any finite resource, there won't be a gradual downswing in supply, seeing as prices will rise, better techniques will be invented to squeeze the oil reservoirs at a heck of a rate till the last drop - and then there will be a supply crash. And it's not only the gas-guzzling autos on the US freeways that'll feel the pinch - oil is central and core to civilization. We have enslaved ourselves to that stinky black sticky substance, and unless we do something fairly quick to cut our dependancy on oil, civilization will come to an abrupt stop.

Agriculture is dependent on millions of barrels of oil on a daily basis, and agriculture also made it possible for our population to shoot through the 6-billion mark. When the oil dries up, who's gonna feed the masses? How're they gonna feed them? How will stuff be distributed? I reckon a die-off would be inevitable to bring the population back to pre-1800 times, to bring it back to roughly one billion, the number that can be sustained without the help of oil-fuelled automation.

Thus - the oil companies have the funds to do so now. They must invest heavily into alternative fuel sources, figure out a way to produce hydrogen from seawater using sunlight, for instance. 'Cause once we cross the threshold into the hydrogen economy, the frontiersmen of the array of new technologies involved will control the world.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

...the oil companies have the funds to do so now. They must invest heavily into alternative fuel sources, figure out a way to produce hydrogen from seawater using sunlight, for instance.

There is no obvious reason why the next generation of energy companies would be the same ones that currently supply us with fossil fuels. It could be anyone with the funds to invest. I suspect we willl see a resurgence of interest in nuclear power, for instance, and there are a lot of companies that are better positioned to profit from that development than oil companies.

However, if oil floats above $60 a barrel for long (as it probably will) the oil companies will likely remain consumed with alternative fossil sources (e.g., more oil from existing wells, tar sands, oil shales, etc.)

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Just as that is an erroneous syllogism, so is yours.

It's either a sophism or a paralogism, according to whether or not the fallacy was done deliberately to deceive.

Originally Posted by Skippy

Is plutonium a renewable energy source? To my knowledge it is a material with a finite supply. After it is used it becomes something else...useful in the creation of armor piercing ammo, but no longer usable as a fuel source. Is it a fossil fuel? Not.

Yes and no. Plutonium doesn't occur naturally but it can be obtained from uranium 238. The latter is what's used for armour piercing, not the fission products.

Originally Posted by Skippy

Stomping your feet in a tantrum will not end the scientific debate going on here. Personally I agree with Hubbert, that we will reach a Peak in worldwide Oil production soon and we need to be looking for alternative energy sources NOW!

Quite right about both things!

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

It's either a sophism or a paralogism, according to whether or not the fallacy was done deliberately to deceive.

Yes and no. Plutonium doesn't occur naturally but it can be obtained from uranium 238. The latter is what's used for armour piercing, not the fission products.

Erroneous syllogism = sophism or paralogism

OK, so we do not have an infinite or rewable source of U-238 do we? My bad on the material used in armor piercing bullets, you are correct.