It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Earth's Battery Is Running Low

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
So what he is saying in a around about way is that we have used up a lot of earths resources. I think we all know that.

No need to turn it in to some sort of etheral "battery". Makes it sound unscientific and a bit spiritual/hippy sounding.




posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Howdy,

First, thanks for the article. Interesting to see safer alternatives to the current common fracking fluids. Of course, I don't know if it is possible for completely safe fracking fluids... To offset some density of certain rock chips might require the use of quite heavy materials, for instance barium. Regardless, I feel slightly better about supporting the oil and gas industry, for now at least.

Second, if you want to define said resources as renewable, I'd say you have a fair point, but only if we are speaking "renewable over geologic time." After all, it isn't often that large bolides collide with Earth (thank goodness) and enrich the upper crust with dense metals such as... iridium. Likewise, it isn't often that resources are brought from the deep mantle and exhumed... Regardless, these materials are still finite through the cosmos, and certainly it would be ill-advised to count on bolide collisions to "renew" resources (although we do get a lot of so-called cosmic dust).

Third, oil, gas, and coal can be renewed over geological time, yes, but they require large amounts of organic matter to be "collected" in one place, buried by sediment, heated at the right temperature and the right pressures, exhumed from under the overlying strata, and discovered at the surface. These processes operate not in thousands of years, but millions. Likewise, not every location is capable of producing such resources.

Fourth, yes, I'm sure every scientist is aware of the inaccuracies inherent to their models. No scientist claims infallibility (as far as I know... And if one does, feel assured the community thinks s/he is as crazy as the public must think). That said, geology is an old field, and petroleum is an expensive commodity. Believe it or not, scientists are often profit driven (if they are practical and not purely academic), and it should be no surprise that a good amount of geology since the 50's has centered around petroleum and natural gas. Of course, coal was the big resource during the late 1800's. Point is, an economic geologist's bread and butter comes from being able to accurately model available and economic deposits of resources. Now models and estimations are not always accurate, they may not even be close (owing to errors in methods and whatnot), but geologists are still employed for a reason. The accuracy and precision of the techniques employed by the geologists are statistically greater than luck, and quite often closely correspond to what is found in reality.

Fifth, I should mention that I have thus far only discussed the organic accumulation of oil/gas. There are indeed inorganic pathways that produce trivial amounts of hydrocarbons on Earth. It is well known that simple hydrocarbons are common in the cosmos, devoid of life. This might have been omitted in the original estimations. That said, the omission would hardly affect accuracy, as the pathways on Earth produce trivial amounts of hydrocarbon when compared to what can be demonstrated with high likelihood to be of organic origins. In this way, perhaps you might accept that not all inaccuracies result in the complete failure of a model? Much like my earlier example of considering the Earth a sphere is not completely accurate, the answer one gets with the assumption/approximation is rather close.

It's been a pleasure discussing Earth and Earth resources.

Sincerely,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Interesting topic, perhaps fitting with an expanding earth theory. As the surface increases the mantle area may increase in size, also using up buried resources as it consumes the inner surface. That's what it made me think of in my head when he uses the term battery. On the other hand I know nothing of these topics but sure does exercise the brain.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

What are you a teenager or something? I think your prefrontal cortex has yet to fully mylenate, cause that reasoning is very weak.

Run along now, kid.


Hold the hard talk, if someone disagrees, the idea is to show the way...go ahead, at least in as much detail as the OP is offering. The OP is giving us a premise offered by John Schramski, either his premise is accurate or it is not. It appears to be based on the carbon cycle, but I'm not sure how carbon can ultimately dissipate from the Earth, (even Co2 a gas, is heavier than air) other than a major intervention like an asteroid or similar. So then he also talks about heat radiated into space, that's something else that needs to be addressed, but there will always be heat generated on dynamic Earth as long as there are some rocks to rub together..how long that'll take to dissipate will take a while to work out too.
edit on 12-8-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, the atmosphere traps the Carbon heat but in the article the author says that Chemical energy leaves the Earth as Radiation into Space. Here's the quote from the article:

"As we burn organic chemical energy, we generate work to grow our population and economy. In the process the high-quality chemical energy is transformed into heat and lost from the planet by radiation into outer space," explains Schramski and his colleagues.


I don't think that correct. I think the earth stores heat, ie energy in the oceans. Energy can't be made, or destroyed, it can only change state, basic physics. I think we have taken millions of years of worth solar energy that was stored in biomass and set it free in the environment in only a couple of hundred years.
If I am right, well may God help us. It will take an ice age, or nuclear winter to restore the balance.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, the atmosphere traps the Carbon heat but in the article the author says that Chemical energy leaves the Earth as Radiation into Space. Here's the quote from the article:

"As we burn organic chemical energy, we generate work to grow our population and economy. In the process the high-quality chemical energy is transformed into heat and lost from the planet by radiation into outer space," explains Schramski and his colleagues.


I don't think that correct. I think the earth stores heat, ie energy in the oceans. Energy can't be made, or destroyed, it can only change state, basic physics. I think we have taken millions of years of worth solar energy that was stored in biomass and set it free in the environment in only a couple of hundred years.
If I am right, well may God help us. It will take an ice age, or nuclear winter to restore the balance.


I think you where on the right thought process there but it won't take an ice age nor nuclear winter to restore any balance...Truth of the matter is, we have no clue to the inner dynamics of our Earth and without debating renewable resources on Earth this "rock" we are on seems to not only be almost smarter than us but also able to create whatever is needed....Sorry I am trying to dumb down a very complex topic



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Thanks for the reply, enjoyed it!


These processes operate not in thousands of years, but millions


Says who? Oh, you mean by what we currently understand, right? Well that can be debated as well.....Have we observed the molten center of the Earth reproducing materials to the surface? If so, I am all ears!

Somehow those wells that get drilled just get filled back up or nearby....Does this mean it is coming from further down in the Earth or we don't know how to currently measure how much is there? That's a question for a different topic as well, truth is we really don't know and pretend to be smart about our Earth...

If you are worried about chemicals in fracking I can appreciate that statement, but please look into casing now compared to 75 years ago....A proper casing job is how the chemicals stay put and believe me when I say liquid isn't leaking out of casing now a days! They drop dynamite down parts of casing to test integrity and if a full stick of TNT isn't budging the casing, fluid isn't leaving....Now getting rid of the chemicals again is another conversation for another time, but you can feel confident if a well is put on land nearby in todays age.....Don't believe the propaganda movies like my sink is on fire crap...That is methane and was there prior to any well being drilled, methane is very common in private water wells...

Oh well, I enjoyed reading and talking again! Thanks



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Howdy,

By what we currently understand based on all the available field data involving igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks as well as experimental data as collected in laboratories, yes. Unless you want to argue that the laws of physics are not as (relatively) constant on this macroscopic scale, well, yes, millions of years for certain processes. Although, you might be interested to know that not all processes take millions of years. Isostatic readjustment of crust has been happening in some areas over the last few tens of thousands of years (since the major glaciers melted).

As for actually viewing "replenishment" (not reproducing, they are finite in the system) from the "molten center" (sidenote: the center of the Earth is solid and quite dense as demonstrable via seismic wave data... In fact, there are very few "truly" molten horizons in the center of the Earth. Interesting subject, though.), well that's what the studies of volcanology and igneous petrology are for. You can see clear isotopic enrichment (most prominently in some rare earth elements) in deep mantle-derived sources when compared to even shallow mantle sources. So yes, we have evidence of crustal enrichment of certain things in the form of igneous bodies.

But igneous bodies are really more concerned with the heavier elements, not hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons need to literally be cooked under the right temperature and pressure conditions in order to be useable by humans. To argue against the slow formation of gas is rather strange... Based on isotopic fractionation data, hydrocarbons in most oil and gas are from organic sources. The gradual build up of organic matter in deep ocean shales (or trapped in coral reefs, or whatever else you have for a host rock) are first necessary. These organic remains then need to be buried by successive layers of sediment. Eventually, the lithospheric block will begin to sink into the asthenosphere. With the successive layers building up, pressure builds and the block lowers into hotter depths. To find the gas or oil, we must have access to it, so exhumation must occur after the basin is filled with sediment or the sea must become shallower due to some other means (like being locked in ice). Notice the depth of sediment necessary to create the pressure and heat...
www.petersavagenovels.com...
The peak is about 3 km of depth. If you know of any quick processes that add 3km of sediment to ocean bottoms, I am legitimately interested in knowing about them.

As for the wells "filling back up," that's again down to physical constraints. Remember that hydrocarbons are less dense than rock, so they tend to rise (if they have sufficient ability to do so through joints and interconnected pores). Some hydrocarbons tend to "stick" to the grains of certain host rocks (for a host of physical property reasons...), but the simple truth of the matter is that we cannot get every last drop of oil out of any reservoir. If we take it slow enough, it replenishes from neighboring pores in the host rock. If we take it too fast, we lose lifespan for the rig, but we could produce more (and leave more oil behind, if we speak about total sums). It isn't being made in the rock, though, it was always there.

I don't pretend to be smart about the Earth; it's too complicated a system. I do, however, think the models we create are more accurate then you might be giving them credit.

As for the casings, yes, I have heard a properly installed casing these days is quite safe, in the sense that nothing is lost from the casing itself. I was more worried about naturally existing joints in the rocks, or even porous interconnected spaces. I hear the problem is especially bad in limestones. As for the propaganda, I tend to take a middle approach. I know fracking isn't perfectly safe, nor is it inherently harmful. It's hard to tell where the methane in those "water on fire" videos comes from, considering the water likely travels through the same hostrock which contains the hydrocarbons being targeted for fracking. In any case, I would agree that the hydrocarbons are not being "added" by fracking. I still support fracking, and I agree that if done properly the risks are mitigated more than sufficiently. But as you say, we don't know everything about the subsurface, and unexpected joints in limestones make for excellent conduits.

Again, I must say I enjoyed the discussion. Sorry for the rambling and long-winded responses.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman
edit on 13-8-2015 by hydeman11 because: Broken link to p/t chart

edit on 13-8-2015 by hydeman11 because: still broken...



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I was waiting for you to come back! I completely understand what you say and what we know....But I only ask that we don't believe everything we read because we think we know...Not saying anything is wrong you said because I agree with 99% of it, just not to accept everything at face value because he/she/we say so....This planet is a beautiful creature and has powers, we aren't just a rock running out of resources....That's the only part of the argument I don't like, When they say resources people immediately think oh no, what so ever shall we do if this happens? It just causes panic and is really just a scare tactic and honestly wouldn't doubt if it was a marketing ploy to raise prices...Cause fear and people will pay more...

Since we about covered most of this a few times I don't have much more to add....I just hate doom and gloom when we really I mean really don't know....We don't even know everything that is currently in our oceans and we begin to talk about running out of resources? I don't know, I just don't like it and that was why I replied in the first place....Thanks brother!



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Howdy,

Apologies for my late return, the Perseid meteor shower kept me up a bit late last night. Beautiful show.

Well, so long as we both agree that they are indeed models, based on the available evidence, then I see no reason for any further belabored argumentation over the accuracy of the models. After all, I would hate to squash skepticism in this day and age. Like you, I would rather encourage it.

That said, I find the idea that we are using fossil fuels at a rate that outpaces their "production" consistent with what I currently think I understand about Earth processes. Even so, I agree there is no need for gloom and doom. We have plenty of fossil fuel resources for our lifetimes and several after (even with the expanding demand from foreign "industrially developing" nations). The coal in the US alone... But the resources are finite, and what can be gathered economically will vanish first, leaving less and less viable material.

Kindest regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Yessir just don't tell the general public that.....They heard different! I was up watching the meteor shower last night as well, pretty cool! I had a huge one right over my roof it was amazing!


We have plenty of fossil fuel resources for our lifetimes and several after


Coal can't be used in as many ways as many other resources though, I don't see that being a large issue at all really....Hey we could use helium and go mine the moon....Wait.....Nevermind

edit on 8/13/2015 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Howdy,

I saw several nice meteors with some lasting trails, myself. Best shower I've seen in years.

Coal is certainly a viable alternative to other fossil fuels, with a little bit of re-working. Whether we choose to burn coal for electricity (which I do believe is one of the most common uses), we could have electric cars. I think that's the wrong move, what with the sulfur content of most of our coal, the loss of energy due to changes of energy form (loss with every change/transfer of energy...), and the problem of storing energy for long distances (batteries these days are great, but require rare earth elements and all extra battery weight results in less efficient driving). Coal gas was employed in WWII, and there's no reason it couldn't be used again (although still has its inefficiencies).

However, with the advent of fracking, I predict a shift from using gasoline to doing what India has been doing, using compressed natural gas/and or LNG. They are cleaner burning than most gasoline (in the sense that it mainly produces CO2), is more energy dense than gasoline, and relatively abundant in comparison to gasoline. Of course, we would need to change the infrastructure of fuel stations and natural gas is more combustible...

Plenty of fuel out there, if you don't mind the environmental hits with CO2 or sulfides... (Both of which would acidify rain and waterways further, whether or not one accepts the evidence of anthropogenic induced climate change.) We have abundant fuel, for sure, but I agree with the scientists that wrote the original journal article that if the trend they see reflects reality (rate of use being greater than rate of replenishment), it will be troubling for far future generations.

Kind regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Meanwhile..



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

This is merely speculation on my part, but I believe scientists and inventors like Nikola Tesla specifically incarnated into Earth at the time they did to help reorient the evolving technological civilization down a sustainable path via their breakthrough technologies etc.

It may have failed when it comes to Tesla's dreams of a world utilizing wireless electricity and this sort of thing. The 1% of power at that time, JP Morgan, had the opportunity to establish that evolution for civilization... but declined.

So I think we all know who to blame...
edit on 2015-08-17T16:39:12-05:002015Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:39:12 -050012pm39Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:39:12 -050000 by corsair00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Very interesting thx for posting .....There are all sorts of systems on this planet we really have no understanding of,i quite like the battery analogy



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join