Remember me
▼ Content

Fossil fuels



Page 4 of 4<<<234
17-03-2021 04:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
keepit wrote:
What is pure carbon?
What is impure carbon?


No such thing as 'impure carbon'.

Carbon is an element. You can find it on the periodic table of the elements as position 12. It has an atomic weight of 12.011, has three naturally occurring isotopes; C12, C13, and C14.
It doesn't melt, but it sublimes at 6917 deg F.

Carbon will begin burning at different temperatures, depending on the bond structure:

Amorphous carbon will begin burning at approx 572 deg F.
Graphite carbon will begin burning at approx 1472 deg F.
Diamond will begin burning at approx 1562 deg F.

Amorphous carbon is used in fireworks to produce long lasting orange sparks. Stars made with amorphous carbon will burn a long time for the size of the star, is easy to ignite, and leaves a very pretty streak of orange in the sky as it falls.

Combining carbon with iron in a star will produce a gold spark, not as long lasting, but quite pretty. This is the same gold spark you see when you grind steel. The more carbon in the steel, the more the spark branches. Firework manufacturers simply combine iron filings and carbon.

The oxidizer used, of course, can affect the spark color as well. The use of potassium nitrate in a carbon star will tend to whiten the color. It won't last as long either, since it burns much faster.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
17-03-2021 06:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Into the Night wrote:Combining carbon with iron in a star will produce a gold spark, not as long lasting, but quite pretty.

That way the sparks are gold too!

.
Attached image:

18-03-2021 03:44
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
So the coal seams occured naturally and are not old trees and vegetation
18-03-2021 06:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote:
So the coal seams occured naturally and are not old trees and vegetation

I don't know how to put it any more clearly ... nobody knows. No human has observed coal form naturally.

Therefore you are free to speculate ... but you must remember that it is your speculation and is not "what we know."

You should also remember that only the carbon burns, i.e. the coal is carbon, and the impurities are not carbon and they do not burn. Carbon, by its nature, does not come with little tags that specify its origin or detail its method of forming.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-03-2021 08:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
So the coal seams occured naturally and are not old trees and vegetation

It is assumed they occurred naturally. How they formed is unknown.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
18-03-2021 09:14
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
How is coal formed?
The environments or conditions under which these coals were formed: anthracite coal, bituminous coal,
lignite?

Coal formed millions of years ago when the earth was covered with huge swampy forests where plants - giant ferns, reeds and mosses - grew. As the plants grew, some died and fell into the swamp waters. New plants grew up to take their places and when these died still more grew. In time, there was thick layer of dead plants rotting in the swamp. The surface of the earth changed and water and dirt washed in, stopping to decaying process. More plants grew up, but they too died and fell, forming separate layers. After millions of years many layers had formed, one on top of the other. The weight of the top layers and the water and dirt packed down the lower layers of plant matter. Heat and pressure produced chemical and physical changes in the plant layers which forced out oxygen and left rich carbon deposits. In time, material that had been plants became coal.

Coals are classified into three main ranks, or types: lignite, bituminous coal, and anthracite. These classifications are based on the amount of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen present in the coal. Coal is defined as a readily combustible rock containing more than 50% by weight of carbon. Coals other constituents include hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, ash, and sulfur. Some of the undesirable chemical constituents include chorine and sodium. In the process of transformation (coalification), peat is altered to lignite, lignite is altered to sub-bituminous, sub-bituminous coal is altered to bituminous coal, and bituminous coal is altered to anthracite.

Lignite - is the lowest rank of coal - which means that it has the lowest heating value and lowest carbon content. Although lignite is more solid than peat it crumbles when shipped long distances. Most lignite in the U.S. is in North and South Dakota, Montana, and Texas. Lignite is used to generate electricity. Other uses include generating synthetic natural gas and producing fertilizer products.

Bituminous - is intermediate in rank and sometimes called soft coal. It appears smooth when you first see it, but look closer and you'll find it has many layers. It is the most abundant kind of coal. It has a high heating value, but it also has a high sulfur content. More than 80% of the bituminous coal produce in the U.S. is burned to generate electricity. Other major coal users are the cement, food, paper, automobile, textile and plastic industries. Another important industrial use is to provide coke for iron and steel industries. Bituminous coal derivatives, or by-products can be changed into many different chemicals form which we can make paint, nylon, aspirin and many other items.

Anthracite - is the highest rank of coal which means that it has the highest heating value and highest carbon content. It is very hard, deep black, and looks almost metallic because it is brilliantly glossy. Anthracite burns longer, with more heat and with less dust and soot than other types of coal. The primary market for anthracite is for heating homes. Nearly all of the anthracite in the U.S. is in Pennsylvania, but there are some small beds in other states.

For more info on coal for your research check out the Kentucky Coal Facts Book, it has lots of information about coal from how it was formed to how it's used to make electricity. Another good sight is the Kentucky Geological Survey.

This is my last post on the matter.I can not understand what purpose it would serve to make this up.Mankind has split the atom surely we can work out where coal comes from
18-03-2021 14:53
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
So the coal seams occured naturally and are not old trees and vegetation

I don't know how to put it any more clearly ... nobody knows. No human has observed coal form naturally.

Therefore you are free to speculate ... but you must remember that it is your speculation and is not "what we know."

You should also remember that only the carbon burns, i.e. the coal is carbon, and the impurities are not carbon and they do not burn. Carbon, by its nature, does not come with little tags that specify its origin or detail its method of forming.

.



And yet diamonds are formed by a similar process which has been observed. Aren't you aware that some diamonds are fabricated by mimicking the natural process in a factory? By law, they are required to be marked so it will be known that it is a man made diamond.

The number one question we get is "Are lab-created diamonds real diamonds?" (also called man-made diamonds or lab-grown diamonds)

The answer is a very simple yes.

The only thing that makes a lab-created diamond different from a natural diamond is its origin. A lab-created diamond is "grown" inside a lab using cutting-edge technology that replicates the natural diamond growing process. The result is a man-made diamond that is chemically, physically, and optically the same as those grown beneath the Earth's surface.
https://www.cleanorigin.com/about-lab-created-diamonds/

Edited on 18-03-2021 14:53
18-03-2021 19:37
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
So the coal seams occured naturally and are not old trees and vegetation

I don't know how to put it any more clearly ... nobody knows. No human has observed coal form naturally.

Therefore you are free to speculate ... but you must remember that it is your speculation and is not "what we know."

You should also remember that only the carbon burns, i.e. the coal is carbon, and the impurities are not carbon and they do not burn. Carbon, by its nature, does not come with little tags that specify its origin or detail its method of forming.

.


We obviously can't observe diamonds being created in nature. We lab processes are necessarily the same, just the final product is close enough. We tend to streamline a lot of processes, to make them as quick and simple as possible. We want to do it efficiently, for quick profit.


And yet diamonds are formed by a similar process which has been observed. Aren't you aware that some diamonds are fabricated by mimicking the natural process in a factory? By law, they are required to be marked so it will be known that it is a man made diamond.

The number one question we get is "Are lab-created diamonds real diamonds?" (also called man-made diamonds or lab-grown diamonds)

The answer is a very simple yes.

The only thing that makes a lab-created diamond different from a natural diamond is its origin. A lab-created diamond is "grown" inside a lab using cutting-edge technology that replicates the natural diamond growing process. The result is a man-made diamond that is chemically, physically, and optically the same as those grown beneath the Earth's surface.
https://www.cleanorigin.com/about-lab-created-diamonds/
18-03-2021 20:18
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
So the coal seams occured naturally and are not old trees and vegetation

I don't know how to put it any more clearly ... nobody knows. No human has observed coal form naturally.

Therefore you are free to speculate ... but you must remember that it is your speculation and is not "what we know."

You should also remember that only the carbon burns, i.e. the coal is carbon, and the impurities are not carbon and they do not burn. Carbon, by its nature, does not come with little tags that specify its origin or detail its method of forming.

.


We obviously can't observe diamonds being created in nature. We lab processes are necessarily the same, just the final product is close enough. We tend to streamline a lot of processes, to make them as quick and simple as possible. We want to do it efficiently, for quick profit.


And yet diamonds are formed by a similar process which has been observed. Aren't you aware that some diamonds are fabricated by mimicking the natural process in a factory? By law, they are required to be marked so it will be known that it is a man made diamond.

The number one question we get is "Are lab-created diamonds real diamonds?" (also called man-made diamonds or lab-grown diamonds)

The answer is a very simple yes.

The only thing that makes a lab-created diamond different from a natural diamond is its origin. A lab-created diamond is "grown" inside a lab using cutting-edge technology that replicates the natural diamond growing process. The result is a man-made diamond that is chemically, physically, and optically the same as those grown beneath the Earth's surface.
https://www.cleanorigin.com/about-lab-created-diamonds/



Nice way to muck up my post Harvey. Are you sure you're not a Republican?
18-03-2021 22:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
How is coal formed?
The environments or conditions under which these coals were formed: anthracite coal, bituminous coal,
lignite?

Coal formed millions of years ago when the earth was covered with huge swampy forests where plants - giant ferns, reeds and mosses - grew.
...deleted remaining scripture...

How do you know? Were you there?
duncan61 wrote:
Coals are classified into three main ranks, or types: lignite, bituminous coal, and anthracite. These classifications are based on the amount of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen present in the coal.

Coal is carbon. Only carbon. There is nothing else.
duncan61 wrote:
Coal is defined as a readily combustible rock containing more than 50% by weight of carbon.

Nope. Coal is carbon. Only carbon. There is nothing else.
duncan61 wrote:
Coals other constituents include hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, ash, and sulfur.

These are not coal.
duncan61 wrote:
Some of the undesirable chemical constituents include chorine and sodium.

No chlorine gas has ever been found in coal. No sodium has ever been found in coal. These are both highly reactive elements, not found in nature.
duncan61 wrote:
...deleted scripture...
For more info on coal for your research check out the Kentucky Coal Facts Book, it has lots of information about coal from how it was formed to how it's used to make electricity. Another good sight is the Kentucky Geological Survey.

Kentucky did not exist a million years ago. False authority fallacy.
duncan61 wrote:
This is my last post on the matter.

Time will tell.
duncan61 wrote:
I can not understand what purpose it would serve to make this up.

I don't either. Yet you are making shit up.
duncan61 wrote:
Mankind has split the atom surely we can work out where coal comes from

Non-sequitur fallacy.

Splitting atoms is easy. Chuck some salt into some water and stir. Done.
Splitting nuclei happens naturally, especially in elements like uranium and plutonium. We do not know how uranium deposits originate either.

We do know where plutonium comes from. It's all man-made.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
18-03-2021 22:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
So the coal seams occured naturally and are not old trees and vegetation

I don't know how to put it any more clearly ... nobody knows. No human has observed coal form naturally.

Therefore you are free to speculate ... but you must remember that it is your speculation and is not "what we know."

You should also remember that only the carbon burns, i.e. the coal is carbon, and the impurities are not carbon and they do not burn. Carbon, by its nature, does not come with little tags that specify its origin or detail its method of forming.

.



And yet diamonds are formed by a similar process which has been observed. Aren't you aware that some diamonds are fabricated by mimicking the natural process in a factory? By law, they are required to be marked so it will be known that it is a man made diamond.

The number one question we get is "Are lab-created diamonds real diamonds?" (also called man-made diamonds or lab-grown diamonds)

The answer is a very simple yes.

The only thing that makes a lab-created diamond different from a natural diamond is its origin. A lab-created diamond is "grown" inside a lab using cutting-edge technology that replicates the natural diamond growing process. The result is a man-made diamond that is chemically, physically, and optically the same as those grown beneath the Earth's surface.
https://www.cleanorigin.com/about-lab-created-diamonds/

There is no such law.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
17-04-2021 10:19
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I am having a break so here goes.If coal is pure carbon would it not be called Carbon
17-04-2021 15:42
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
duncan61 wrote:
I am having a break so here goes.If coal is pure carbon would it not be called Carbon



If you consider that O, O2 and O3 are all pure oxygen, only O and O2 are called oxygen while O3 is called ozone.
With carbon, diamonds are pure carbon as well as coal, graphite, etc. With carbon, the number of molecules and how they are connected changes the end results.
Attached image:

17-04-2021 18:44
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
You have to understand, that many things were named/described, before we had the tools to learn different. The words used, aren't necessary accurate. You can use the original wording, or argue semantics. I generally stick to the original wording, for simplicity, so the widest audience can comprehend, unless there is a specific need to narrow it down. Semantics games, aren't a sufficient reason.

We are all people, so race is unimportant. But, when a white cop, kills a black man, it's significant to point out race, because rioting, looting, burning, usually follows. A black cop, shooting an unarmed white woman, peacefully protesting at the nation's capital, is no big deal, apparently.
17-04-2021 20:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
HarveyH55 wrote:You have to understand, that many things were named/described, before we had the tools to learn different. The words used, aren't necessary accurate. You can use the original wording, or argue semantics. I generally stick to the original wording, for simplicity, so the widest audience can comprehend, unless there is a specific need to narrow it down. Semantics games, aren't a sufficient reason.

That's the part that gives me heartburn. I use the terms "hydrocarbons" and "carbon" because they are accurate and truthful. On the other hand, MANY of the people using the term "fossil fuels" do so to intentionally be dishonest and to push a Marxist agenda. In the end, I am the one who is put on the defensive for making a concerted effort to be honest, clear and up front. I think you would have to agree that I should never be attacked for saying something that is true, accurate and clear ... yet I am. When that happens, you should understand why I have every right to start picking apart the dishonesty and/or confusion behind those attacks on me. Nobody should be arguing/complaining/bitching/whining/moaning/crying because I pointed out that fossils do not burn and that fossils are not used as fuel. That is an entirely true statement which is more obvious than the sun on a cloudless summer afternoon. At most, all I should get in response is what you wrote above, i.e. something to the effect of "Yes, that's completely true, but I'm just using the commonly (mis)understood term." If that were the response that I routinely received then I would have no heartburn. However, as you have witnessed, I get insistence that my straightforward and obvious point is totally mistaken which leads to me having to defend carbon being carbon and hydrocarbons being hydrocarbons. It's stupid when it happens but it occurs repeatedly.

I'm all for the 1st Amendment and for people being free to call carbon and hydrocarbons whatever they want to call them ... but that extends to me as well and I don't think I should be meeting with resistance in referring to carbon as carbon and to hydrocarbons as hydrocarbons.

On that point, I'd be interested in discussing the Fischer-Tropsch process with you. There is clearly something about it that rubs you the wrong way but you have never said what that is. If you are ever up for it, please, let me know.

18-04-2021 02:34
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
Words, are just mode of communication. Not everyone learns all the same words, or their meaning. Not everyone keeps up on the most recent, politically corrected definitions of words. People aren't equally educated, and miss-use words. We all try to choose the words we are most familiar with, to describe what we are thinking. I just make adjustments and corrections in my head, and focus on the thought being communicated. I don't expect perfections, since people are flawed. The difference, is I'm fine with supplying the correct words, is the individual is struggling. I don't feel an obsession, to correct every occurrence of a word or phrase, endlessly. 'Fossil Fuels', triggers a compulsive need to correct. There can be no peace, until that obsession is satisfied. Mostly, I think the attacks on the use of 'fossil fuels', here anyway, is dishonest. It's more of a debate tactic to disrupt the discussion, derail the poster, from completing a thought. Sort of the first line of offense, and probably why there are so few members, new ones don't stay long.

We discussed the Fischer-Tropsch process before. It works, it's great, but does prove that nature does exactly the same process, or that there is no other possible process. Like everything else, man creates processes that are, fast, simple, and produce just the part desired, with minimal waste and byproduct. Not generally a consideration in natural processes.
18-04-2021 02:57
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
So if I say, Я пю or Я усличть,
Just an FYI Harvey, how do you interpret the same words?
It's not personal. It's more bout if you can Fick mich.
Life sucks and we're here, right?
18-04-2021 03:03
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I found this forum to learn after the hippie girl in Fremantle confidently stated "CO2 is like a blanket up in the sky heating up the planet "I still believe that CO2 does radiate a few spectrums of light however the effects are minimal. I have watched Many reports that concur with this.The climate/weather is unpredictable for the most part.Well put Harvey on the deliberate derailing of topics and we lose most newcomers regardless of their current position.If new information is revealed I have the ability to change my opinion.Many times the question "were you there"is raised. I was not there when the Pyramids were built but it happened and I have no memory of being there.
18-04-2021 04:05
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
My theory about coal is that once upon a time there was a lot of CO2 in the sky. You know that the earth was almost a fireball long long time ago . Lots of volcanic activity, heat etc. There was so much CO2 up in the air that eventually there was a point of some kind of saturation. It is like with sugar when you mix it into the tea. At some point it starts to fall out of saturation and fells down at the bottom of the tea cup. Likewise the carbon somehow just fell out due to the saturation and favorable conditions and formed coal layers on earth.
18-04-2021 04:05
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
James___ wrote:
So if I say, Я пю or Я усличть,
Just an FYI Harvey, how do you interpret the same words?
It's not personal. It's more bout if you can Fick mich.
Life sucks and we're here, right?


I interpret it, as some moron thinking Google translate, make him appear smart, online... You know most people here speak English, as their primary language, and so do you. Google won't boost your IQ...
18-04-2021 04:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
HarveyH55 wrote:Words, are just mode of communication. Not everyone learns all the same words, or their meaning.

Very true. Different people even learn different languages.

HarveyH55 wrote: Not everyone keeps up on the most recent, politically corrected definitions of words.

Not everyone is interested in being honest and open minded.

HarveyH55 wrote: People aren't equally educated, and miss-use words. We all try to choose the words we are most familiar with, to describe what we are thinking.

Agreed.

HarveyH55 wrote: I just make adjustments and corrections in my head, and focus on the thought being communicated.

You aren't doubling-down on dishonesty. You are generally honest and straightforward. If I tell you that petroleum is a collection of hydrocarbons, you don't insist they are not. If I point out that fossils don't burn and are not used as fuel, you clarify that you are just using the term for convenience and that's fine.

HarveyH55 wrote: I don't feel an obsession, to correct every occurrence of a word or phrase, endlessly.

There is no such thing as an "obsession" for something that is true. I'm not obsessed about 2 plus 2 equalling 4, but if you were to insist that they added up to 5 then I would point out that the sum is 4, each and every time. The only obsession lies with the person who INSISTS on something that is not true.

Those who were misled into believing that petroleum comes from decaying dinosaurs would rather insist that what they have believed their whole life is true than to accept an obvious truth that would shatter their illusions. THAT is where the obsession lies, not with the person who simply doesn't accept that which is false, albeit rather common.

HarveyH55 wrote: 'Fossil Fuels', triggers a compulsive need to correct.

It is an obvious misunderstanding worthy of the courtesy of correcting ... each and every time.

There is nothing that is FALSE that somehow deserves to be treated as TRUE. If you think you know of something that does, please let me know.

HarveyH55 wrote: There can be no peace, until that obsession is satisfied.

This is absolutely correct once you properly apply it to the correct person with the obsession. Those who are obsessed with the term "fossil fuels" would rather have their teeth extracted without anesthesia than to just admit that hydrocarbons are produced by the earth and are not somehow fossils. Their obsession just makes them totally irrational. So yes, there can be no peace until their obsession is satisfied and their "petroleum from dinosaurs" illusion is no longer in jeopardy.

HarveyH55 wrote: Mostly, I think the attacks on the use of 'fossil fuels', here anyway, is dishonest.

In what way? I am convinced of the opposite, i.e. that the insistence on using the term "fossil fuels" is inherently dishonest. In fact, it is an obsession that precludes admission that fossils are not fuel and that neither carbon nor hydrocarbons are fossils. How is this not the case?

HarveyH55 wrote: It's more of a debate tactic to disrupt the discussion, derail the poster, from completing a thought.

Let me get this straight: straightforward truthfulness is a "debate tactic"?


HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of the first line of offense, and probably why there are so few members, new ones don't stay long.

The reason we get so few that remain is because this site is a magnet for those who are seeking a Climate support group. It's in the name of the forum. All people who believe in Climate and Global Warming are scientifically illiterate or they wouldn't believe in the crap in the first place. Upon arrival they immediately get hit with science and they are always totally unprepared. They leave. I'm still waiting for one of them to come back with someone who isn't totally scientifically illiterate to actually engage in a discussion involving science, math, philosophy, logic and other academic subjects ... but they don't because they are all just looking to feed their need for religion and that's all. They have no intention of ever being rational. Oh well.

HarveyH55 wrote: We discussed the Fischer-Tropsch process before. It works, it's great, but does prove that nature does exactly the same process, or that there is no other possible process.

Right, we have mentioned countless times that no human has ever observed hydrocarbons form in nature, mostly because of the location in which it happens. However, the Fischer-Tropsch process solidified our understanding of some of the basic requirements of the chemistry involved, two of which are high temperatures and high pressure, explaining why dead people and animals just don't decompose into petroleum ... reinforcing just how silly it is to assert that petroleum somehow came about from dead dinosaurs. Additionally we can see that there are no oil wells amongst the fossil record, because it doesn't run anywhere deeply enough to have the high levels of heat and pressure necessary to form the hydrocarbons.

HarveyH55 wrote: Like everything else, man creates processes that are, fast, simple, and produce just the part desired, with minimal waste and byproduct. Not generally a consideration in natural processes.

Additionally, the earth has limitless quantities of the elements needed to produce hydrocarbons in vast quantities. Man does not.

18-04-2021 05:22
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Ancient plant life far outweighs any Fauna that existed over the millennia.over millions of years with pressure and heat it formed in to coal and oil.We process This oil to petroleum products.I did a short stint at BP Kwinana and have seen the catalytic converter in action the crude is heated and spun and heavy oils are extracted from down low and avgas and kerosine from the top.LPG is drawn from the very top pipe which is vertical.It is all further refined on site.Ancient plants are considered fossils as well hence the term fossil fuel.you have cherry picked dinosaurs it's rocks that do not burn even though coal is considered rock
18-04-2021 05:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote: ... over millions of years with pressure and heat it formed in to coal and oil.

Hey dumbass, what pressure? What heat?

Idiot.

duncan61 wrote: Ancient plants are considered fossils as well hence the term fossil fuel.

You are an idiot.




18-04-2021 06:24
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
By being buried over time and organic matter compressed and being exposed to heat from the Earths molten core.If I am a dumbass I am not alone.I did not discover this process on my own.Can you not just debate this without emotions.why is it so important to you and if you have a better theory on how oil formed I would like to learn it. If you do not know just say you don't know but some people do know and I believe them
18-04-2021 08:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
By being buried over time and organic matter compressed and being exposed to heat from the Earths molten core.If I am a dumbass I am not alone.

No, you are not alone. There are lot of dumbasses around these days.
duncan61 wrote:
I did not discover this process on my own.

What process? The one you made up?
duncan61 wrote:
Can you not just debate this without emotions.

This is not a debate. It's a conversation. If you want to get emotional about it, that's your problem.
duncan61 wrote:
why is it so important to you and if you have a better theory on how oil formed I would like to learn it.

RQAA. See the Fischer-Tropsche process. Heat, pressure, carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and an iron catalyst is all that's needed. All conditions that exist naturally underground.
duncan61 wrote:
If you do not know just say you don't know but some people do know and I believe them

RQAA. So you are religious. Fine. Religion, however, is not a proof nor is it science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 18-04-2021 08:34
18-04-2021 17:12
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
Arguing over speculations is insanity, specially when reduce to name-calling, false accusations. Anything of a speculative nature, I don't take too seriously, not to the point of reducing it to some childish, school yard game. I don't buy into the man-made CO2 climate change speculation, either, for exactly the same reason. We don't actually have any means of actually testing, observing, or knowing it to be true or false. The political/religious belief, and economic impact does impact my life, and my wallet. So, it does become an interest, as ridiculous as it may be. The origin of fossil fuels/petroleum/coal isn't so important. Many hydrocarbons are fairly stable, unless burned. A can of motor oil, decades later, is still a can of motor oil... Plants and animals, also contain a lot of fats and oils, hydrocarbons. They were our primary source of oils, to burn, and other things, before we started using the black ooze out of the ground. Just my belief, that hydrocarbons, from organic matter, doesn't just magically disappear. I've been to a few museums of natural history, and have seen fossils, or reproductions enough to get a feel for just how massive some of those life forms were. Animals on that large scale would need a hell of a lot of food, and burn a lot of calories. Speculating that we once had a warmer climate, more CO2, and a lot more plant growth, to support the larger animals appetites, and energy use. I don't 'believe' all those hydrocarbons, that made up all those plants and animals, simply dissipated into nothing. Those massive plants didn't likely just sprout up, in just a few years, and all die off, overnight. They were around for quite a while. How long, is more speculation, that really doesn't matter a whole lot. Different time, different climate, doesn't really compare to modern day standards. Almost like a completely different planet.

All speculation, no way to observe, but I tend to believe that organic matter, does play some role in 'fossil fuels'. Every living thing, has hydrocarbons. to coincidental, to completely dismiss.
18-04-2021 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Arguing over speculations is insanity, specially when reduce to name-calling, false accusations. Anything of a speculative nature, I don't take too seriously, not to the point of reducing it to some childish, school yard game. I don't buy into the man-made CO2 climate change speculation, either, for exactly the same reason. We don't actually have any means of actually testing, observing, or knowing it to be true or false. The political/religious belief, and economic impact does impact my life, and my wallet. So, it does become an interest, as ridiculous as it may be. The origin of fossil fuels/petroleum/coal isn't so important. Many hydrocarbons are fairly stable, unless burned. A can of motor oil, decades later, is still a can of motor oil... Plants and animals, also contain a lot of fats and oils, hydrocarbons. They were our primary source of oils, to burn, and other things, before we started using the black ooze out of the ground. Just my belief, that hydrocarbons, from organic matter, doesn't just magically disappear. I've been to a few museums of natural history, and have seen fossils, or reproductions enough to get a feel for just how massive some of those life forms were. Animals on that large scale would need a hell of a lot of food, and burn a lot of calories. Speculating that we once had a warmer climate, more CO2, and a lot more plant growth, to support the larger animals appetites, and energy use. I don't 'believe' all those hydrocarbons, that made up all those plants and animals, simply dissipated into nothing. Those massive plants didn't likely just sprout up, in just a few years, and all die off, overnight. They were around for quite a while. How long, is more speculation, that really doesn't matter a whole lot. Different time, different climate, doesn't really compare to modern day standards. Almost like a completely different planet.

All speculation, no way to observe, but I tend to believe that organic matter, does play some role in 'fossil fuels'. Every living thing, has hydrocarbons. to coincidental, to completely dismiss.

No living thing has hydrocarbons. There is a big difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. The 'oil' that is found in fats and essential oils is not hydrocarbons. They are carbohydrates. The oil that we drill for is hydrocarbons.

Both burn, of course. Using carbohydrates as fuel is as old as us and the wood campfire.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 18-04-2021 19:24
18-04-2021 21:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
HarveyH55 wrote: We don't actually have any means of actually testing, observing, or knowing it to be true or false.

Correct. It's completely unfalsifiable at this point.

HarveyH55 wrote: The political/religious belief, and economic impact does impact my life, and my wallet. So, it does become an interest, as ridiculous as it may be.

This is precisely why you should question, and requestion, and doubt, and then doubt again, the Marxist insistence that petroleum is a "fossil fuel" made from dead dinosaurs and that we should panic because it is "running out." When Biden jacks up the price of your gasoline to pay for his subsidies (read: windfall handouts) to "alternate energy sources" because we must hurry, hurry, hurry and "convert" before there is no more petroleum remaining ... you should see it for what it is ... that you are being made to bankroll insiders on the political left. You should recognize how the demand that you believe that petroleum comes from dead dinosaurs is just a play to control you, to manipulate you and to transfer your wealth to others. Yes, it should concern you. Yes, it does impact you, today, right where you are.

HarveyH55 wrote: The origin of fossil fuels/petroleum/coal isn't so important.

Perhaps not, but confidence that the earth will continue to make more hydrocarbons in vast quantities versus panic that "fossil fuels" are running out is a huge issue. What do you believe? Whatever you believe will determine the ease/difficulty with which you are manipulated by politicians.

HarveyH55 wrote: Just my belief, that hydrocarbons, from organic matter, doesn't just magically disappear.

Sure, but it can't possibly seek out other hydrocarbons to form a vast well deep beneath impermeable rock that it cannot penetrate.

The bottom line is that it will dissipate, not amass. Large quantities of petroleum seep up through the earth's crust and into the Gulf of Mexico every day where there are fissures in the otherwise impermeable rock (hydrocarbons seep upward, by the way) and the churning ocean breaks it down and yes, those hydrocarbons simply disappear. Do you remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill "disaster"? Do you know why all that petroleum is gone today? That which was not cleaned up simply "disappeared" over time by natural ocean activity.

There's no reason to believe that the organic matter of all previously living things somehow didn't break down and that the composite elements somehow didn't simply recycle into nature. As I have said previously, there are absolutely no oil wells within the fossil record. None. There is no rationale to support the belief that any organic life ever contributed in any substantive way to any oil well.

18-04-2021 23:31
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Arguing over speculations is insanity, specially when reduce to name-calling, false accusations. Anything of a speculative nature, I don't take too seriously, not to the point of reducing it to some childish, school yard game. I don't buy into the man-made CO2 climate change speculation, either, for exactly the same reason. We don't actually have any means of actually testing, observing, or knowing it to be true or false. The political/religious belief, and economic impact does impact my life, and my wallet. So, it does become an interest, as ridiculous as it may be. The origin of fossil fuels/petroleum/coal isn't so important. Many hydrocarbons are fairly stable, unless burned. A can of motor oil, decades later, is still a can of motor oil... Plants and animals, also contain a lot of fats and oils, hydrocarbons. They were our primary source of oils, to burn, and other things, before we started using the black ooze out of the ground. Just my belief, that hydrocarbons, from organic matter, doesn't just magically disappear. I've been to a few museums of natural history, and have seen fossils, or reproductions enough to get a feel for just how massive some of those life forms were. Animals on that large scale would need a hell of a lot of food, and burn a lot of calories. Speculating that we once had a warmer climate, more CO2, and a lot more plant growth, to support the larger animals appetites, and energy use. I don't 'believe' all those hydrocarbons, that made up all those plants and animals, simply dissipated into nothing. Those massive plants didn't likely just sprout up, in just a few years, and all die off, overnight. They were around for quite a while. How long, is more speculation, that really doesn't matter a whole lot. Different time, different climate, doesn't really compare to modern day standards. Almost like a completely different planet.

All speculation, no way to observe, but I tend to believe that organic matter, does play some role in 'fossil fuels'. Every living thing, has hydrocarbons. to coincidental, to completely dismiss.

No living thing has hydrocarbons. There is a big difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. The 'oil' that is found in fats and essential oils is not hydrocarbons. They are carbohydrates. The oil that we drill for is hydrocarbons.

Both burn, of course. Using carbohydrates as fuel is as old as us and the wood campfire.


Methane a hydrocarbon? The bacteria that produces methane, isn't confined to intestinal tracks... Does swamp gas come from bacteria? Any reason bacteria couldn't release other hydrocarbons, from carbohydrates? Any reason why carbohydrates couldn't break down into hydrocarbons, as part of the decaying process? Play with your semantics, if that's what amuses you. Carbohydrates contain everything found in hydrocarbons. Just word play. I know words too, just not playing the 'picky' game. I don't need to 'win' anything here.
19-04-2021 01:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote:If I am a dumbass I am not alone.

That is absolutely certain.

duncan61 wrote: I did not discover this process on my own.

Of course not. You are OBEDIENTLY regurgitating it.

duncan61 wrote:Can you not just debate this without emotions.

Can you not discuss anything honestly? I hate liars, it's that simple.

duncan61 wrote: why is it so important to you

Honesty has always been very important to me. I hate liars.

duncan61 wrote: ...and if you have a better theory on how oil formed I would like to learn it.

Liar. If that were true then you would have read the links I provided you and you would not have made that stupid comment.

Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Fossil fuels:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
fossil fuel1313-01-2021 09:35
fossil fuel4430-12-2020 05:34
ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil 14423-06-2020 21:01
Nature stops humans burning fossil fuel101-05-2020 19:13
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact