Is oil a renewable resource?

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
What the hell are you arguing then?

Oil isn't renewable-it doesn't replace itself on any measured 'cycle'.

Whay are you being stupid?

Rogo

The Earth will produce oil until the necessary conditions are not longer present - meaning, more than likely, that the planet has been destroyed. We aren't arguing that the creation of oil is a slow process or that we will one day have so little that it's no longer usable. We're arguing that there wasn't "one blip in the history of this earth that produced 'oil'". That is completely wrong. We're also arguing that you are a complete douche-bag.

 

[BrownTown]

omg bannation for parody threads? Thanks for the warning, I was about to write one .

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I think nuclear power plants are renewable because given an infinite amount of time, nature could build one simply by chance.

That is what this discussion equates to. Oil is renewable over a period of time so great that it's pointless saying it's renewable. You might as well expect a nuclear power plant to be created by nature and argue that their "spawning" every 1,000,000 years proves that it is a renewable resource. It's an ignorant argument to make, as is calling oil a renewable resource.

 

[Rogodin2]

Oil is a renewable resource.

Rogo

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Do you honestly expect people to listen to you with your attitude? No one is going to change their fuel habits because some douchebag like yourself goes around making flamebait threads everyday about how we are ruining the enviroment.

I hope someone reads my posts and my links and thinks twice about their inane life (as yours seems to be NG).

To post a lock from a request from an insignificant poster like (Ihatemyjob) is below the forum rules.

My attitude? I'm just reacting to the hostility posted here.

Rogo

its weird. i can see you are intelligent. but you really come off as ignorant.

Makes me think of a good friend of mine. extremely smart guy. but does not know how to get the idea across in a way that encourages debate and change.

 

[Rogodin2]

We're also arguing that you are a complete douche-bag.

That's irrelevant.

Rogo

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
omg bannation for parody threads? Thanks for the warning, I was about to write one .

I would hope the mods would have some sympathy for this particular flame bait thread, which we all unfortunately took. However, the domino effect with parody threads just kind of ruins it...

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I think nuclear power plants are renewable because given an infinite amount of time, nature could build one simply by chance.

That is what this discussion equates to. Oil is renewable over a period of time so great that it's pointless saying it's renewable. You might as well expect a nuclear power plant to be created by nature and argue that their "spawning" every 1,000,000 years proves that it is a renewable resource. It's an ignorant argument to make, as is calling oil a renewable resource.

difference is Oil is natural. over a long enough time it (can) be replenished. granted i feel t he human race will be long gone.

but a nuclear facility is man made. it will NEVER in any amount of time happen by nature.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Do you honestly expect people to listen to you with your attitude? No one is going to change their fuel habits because some douchebag like yourself goes around making flamebait threads everyday about how we are ruining the enviroment.

I hope someone reads my posts and my links and thinks twice about their inane life (as yours seems to be NG).

To post a lock from a request from an insignificant poster like (Ihatemyjob) is below the forum rules.

My attitude? I'm just reacting to the hostility posted here.

Rogo

So my life is inane because I don't ride a bicycle everywhere? :laugh:

Just curious, how much energy do you think your PC is using, epecially when you're burning a CD? What about a hot water heater? Refridgerator? I would think such a staunt enviromental activist like youself would try lead by example and not use these wasteful things.

 

[Rogodin2]

its weird. i can see you are intelligent. but you really come off as ignorant.

W

That's strange. I only overreact to people that don't ask questions about my motives for posting such questions.

The second reason for my responses is that I've seen enough people on this forum to understand that their world view is set in concrete. My method of 'jackhammering' is nasty-but I think it's necessary.

Rogo

 

[Sdiver2489]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
My method of 'jackhammering' is nasty.

Rogo

Dude....that's hot :lips:

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I think nuclear power plants are renewable because given an infinite amount of time, nature could build one simply by chance.

That is what this discussion equates to. Oil is renewable over a period of time so great that it's pointless saying it's renewable. You might as well expect a nuclear power plant to be created by nature and argue that their "spawning" every 1,000,000 years proves that it is a renewable resource. It's an ignorant argument to make, as is calling oil a renewable resource.

difference is Oil is natural. over a long enough time it (can) be replenished. granted i feel t he human race will be long gone.

but a nuclear facility is man made. it will NEVER in any amount of time happen by nature.

You missed the point.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Rogidan,

Your "jackhammering" is stupid.

I'm now 31 and debating things like this is pointless. WE ALL KNOW THE FACTS. What the hell is your point. Is anything discovered in this htread going to impact your life?

It's good to see you'll never accomplish anything because you are not very good at resource allocation.

/thread

 

[iamaelephant]

What is the point of this thread? The only reason for the discrepancy in the pole is that people are confused with the loosely-defined word "renewable". Of course oil isn't renewable on a practical time span (at least I hope that no one really thinks it is) but it is clearly "renewable" on geological time scales. It had to form somehow, and there's no reason to believe that the process responsible has stopped happening.

Out of curiosity, is there really anyone who thinks that oil is renewable on human life-span scales? I know there are some pretty crazy people out there...

 

[Sdiver2489]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
What is the point of this thread? The only reason for the discrepancy in the pole is that people are confused with the loosely-defined word "renewable". Of course oil isn't renewable on a practical time span (at least I hope that no one really thinks it is) but it is clearly "renewable" on geological time scales. It had to form somehow, and there's no reason to believe that the process responsible has stopped happening.

Out of curiosity, is there really anyone who thinks that oil is renewable on human life-span scales? I know there are some pretty crazy people out there...

I'd say we've destroyed enough life (700,000+) in our most recent war.

that pretty much gives you the answer to if oil is a renewable resource...somehow

 

[Rogodin2]

It's good to see you'll never accomplish anything because you are not very good at resource allocation.

Your skills are lacking too.

Rogo

 

[txrandom]

So our conclusions are:

For practical purposes oil is not renewable.

For theoretical purposes oil is renewable.

Rogo is a troll.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: txrandom
So our conclusions are:

For practical purposes oil is not renewable.

For theoretical purposes oil is renewable.

Rogo is a troll.

Sounds about right.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I think nuclear power plants are renewable because given an infinite amount of time, nature could build one simply by chance.

Funny thing is, it already did. I forgot the name, but google something like "natural fission reactor". Someplace in India, a geologic amount of time ago (a hell of a long time) the concentration of u-235 (3% of natural uranium today) was great enough that a natural fission reaction went critical. I don't remember if the reaction is still going, but it is highly unlikely another such example of a natural reactor will occur, due to natural uranium consisting of 97% u-238, which is not fissile.

-ben

 

[ForumMaster]

yeah it renews but the process takes thousands of years. doesn't really count i guess. but that doesn't mean we should use it.

 

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Sure, oil may be renewable if you want to wait a hundred million years for a century's worth of fuel. I say "may be" because the geological conditions would have to be right.

this is broadly correct AIUI

renewable is a time span dependent concept..in the end the universe and the low entropy states it contains are non renewable..its all running down.

for a more human scale time span oil is not a renewable resource because the rate we use it outstrips the rate it is made.

if we estimate there are 3 trillion barrels of oil in the ground (YMMV) and the earth is 4.5 billion years oil then the average yearly production rate is a little less than a 1000 barrels a year... a bit more if we say oil only started forming after life stated a billion or so yrs after the formation of the earth

OTOH if abiotic oil is true (I do not hold to such views) and its being made at a renewable rate then oil must be being created at a rate of 30 billion barrels a year or so (yearly consumption of oil)

which means... the earth should contain 4.5 billion times 30 billion barrels of oil = 1.35X 10 to the 20 barrels

which is 2X10 to the 22 ltrs roughly 10 times the amount of water ..

ie there is 10 times as much oil on earth as there is water

is that credible?

I would say not.

at the end of the day everything is finite..get over it

Boris
London

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Oil is more renewable than copper?

Rogo

Yes. Oil is the chemically altered, decayed flesh of animals. If more animals die and undergo the same chemical change, they to can become oil.

The only way I know of to make copper (not mine, not refine, not recycle) is through fusion, and I don't think anyone's ever tried to make it happen. Although technically, every time we set off an H-bomb, we made several different minerals from the periodic table including copper.

 

[FoBoT]

which poll option do i pick if i think this is a troll threaD?

 

[Midlander]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Oil is more renewable than copper?

Rogo

Yes. Oil is the chemically altered, decayed flesh of animals. If more animals die and undergo the same chemical change, they to can become oil.

The only way I know of to make copper (not mine, not refine, not recycle) is through fusion, and I don't think anyone's ever tried to make it happen. Although technically, every time we set off an H-bomb, we made several different minerals from the periodic table including copper.

On the other hand, you don't use up copper. You can take it out of the ground and put it in pipes or other uses, but it's still copper. Same with gold, silver....

 

[Gooberlx2]

It's renewable in geologic time, but for practical energy purposes no....so that's what I voted.