Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste

Anything that can help free yourself from the grid...
Solar, Wind, Water, Free Energy
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste

Post#1 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:47 pm

Interesting supposition.
Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste
By Joseph A Olson, PE Sunday, September 26, 2010

Ominous clouds of informed reason are darkening the skies over the environmental camp. The environmental shock troops, the warmists, opened a direct frontal assault on science with their ‘human caused’ climate change hypothesis. When true science began to examine these claims, a host of other ‘environmental science’ errors appeared.

To prop up claims of the mythical abilities of atmospheric carbon dioxide to determine climate conditions, the warmists fashioned a radiant energy balance sheet [google Earth energy balance]. To avoid long term heating or cooling the energy inflows must match the outflows. Just one problem, one heat source is completely ignored.

The AGW balance sheet shows ONLY solar input. The 259 trillion cubic miles of molten rock that forms our planet is not melted, or maintained at present temperature by solar electromagnetic radiation. This planet is internally warmed by fission of the 700,000 cubic miles of fissionable material burning in our mantle.

This factor is ignored because it has never been quantified. Easy to ignore what you cannot measure, but a guaranteed error in any proper science analysis. The objective analysis sparked by the climate fraud is now having a ripple effect across a broad range of science thought. The unintended consequence is that more environmental group think cornerstones are being demolished.

For any science model to be correct it must include all variables and constants. The warmists have chosen to ignore the Earth’s internal fission heat flow. The Earth has a thin cool crust, floating on a molten cauldron of rock, strictly due to heat of fission of the heavy elements decaying beneath our feet.

To ignore the heat flow necessary to keep Earth molten is a serious error in the warmist heat flow balance chart. To ignore the obvious variability of this fission force is a serious error in the warmist’s predictions of climate change. We know that volcanoes, the most visible expression of Earth’s fission energy, are not constant. With no known quantity for the magnitude or variability of Earth’s fission, the warmists have simply chosen to ignore this climate changing factor.

When Alfred Nobel invented Trinitrotoluene (TNT), it was a quantum leap in pound-per-pound energy when compared to previous chemical explosives. Nuclear energy, the greatest force known in the Universe, can be either fusion of smaller atoms or fission of larger atoms. The force of energy from these reactions is so great that it is measured in megatons of TNT for each pound of nuclear reactant.

Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons and sub-particles. When a large atom is struck by a high speed particle it can split apart, releasing energy and an array of smaller proton, neutron and electron clusters that can be complete, individual atoms or most often isotopes of atoms. Most isotopes are unstable and undergo a further fission to reach a stable configuration. These secondary reactions are called daughter reactions and for Uranium, there are over a dozen.

This author’s article, “Motive Force for all Climate Change” covers this Earth science in more detail, but for now, the dilemma that the environmental movement faces stem from this existing Earth condition. The newly ‘liberated’ atoms from the fission reactions are in an environment of extreme heat and pressure. Some of these daughter atoms are stable, non-reactive inert gases, others quickly find a matching atom and form a stable diatomic molecule. For the remaining atoms, the heat and pressure force new molecular bonding.
Peak Oil and the Kola Hole

At the same time that Hubbert was fashioning his Malthus based “Peak Oil Theory”, Russian geologists were fashioning an abiogenic theory of natural oil generation. This fifties era debate was ‘finite fossil fuel’ vs ‘natural byproduct’ origins of Earth’s Hydrocarbon supplies. In the seventies, Professor Thomas Gold presented his version of the Russian theory.

Both of these abiogenic theories were disproven by actual drilled wells. The original Russian theory was that under heat and pressure ‘rocks decomposed’ into the molecules of Hydrocarbons that then rise into the rock bound reserve locations. Dr Gold then added that subterranean microbes created petroleum in these reserves.

Two, specially drilled wells, failed to find the Gold microbes in any samples, which Gold blamed on operator error. In the seventies there was a rush to drill down to the mantle/crust interface to determine actual Earth conditions. The deepest hole in this experiment was the Russian Kola drill site which provided a surprising Earth science clue.

The Russians were able to reach 42,000 ft deep against enormous heat and pressure, which required new drilling technology. Keeping 8 miles of drill stem working proved impossible, so the Russians developed a drill bit that was driven by drilling mud pumped from above.

To remain liquid, drilling muds must have a boiling point above the ambient and drill friction generated boiling point. The ambient temperature for this 42,000 ft deep hole was approaching 350F degrees and high boiling point, oil based drilling muds were being destroyed by water from the rock structures. Water could not be produced from rock decay so it was declared as ‘elemental’ water.

This condition provides the missing clue for solving the “Abiogenic Oil Theory” that had not been included in the faulty Russian and Gold theories. The Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon atoms necessary for Earth’s natural Hydrocarbon production are from ‘elemental’ fission production. The molecular bonding creates a number of simple molecules including Methane, Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Dioxide (water).

These simple molecules then rise into stable rock reservoirs where heat and pressure, in a reverse fractional distillation process, form the longer Hydrocarbon chains. The solvent nature of these compounds then absorbs organic rock material, giving an organic fingerprint. Rising Methane and other Hydrocarbons which permeate into buried organic sediment layers can then convert this former biomass into coal.

With no way to quantify the fission rate or the byproducts ratio, we are left to guess at what the Earth’s average Hydrocarbon production rate actually is, but it is certain that OIL is a renewable resource. That is bad enough news for warmists and environmentalists, but it only gets worse.
The Meaning of Pismo and La Brea

California is blessed with interesting place names from its multicultural heritage. Pismo Beach is named after the Chumah Indian word for ‘globs of tar’ due to natural Hydrocarbon outflow found on this beach. The Spanish Portola Expedition in 1769 discovered “molten geysers of tar” at the present day La Brea tar pits in downtown Los Angeles. La Brea is Spanish for tar.

Tar still oozes from the ground at La Brea, down now to about 10 gallons per day. Globs of tar still wash up at Pismo Beach, but are now blamed on man’s failed drilling or shipping efforts. While Earths Hydrocarbon production does not appear finite in the near term, there is one thing that is FINITE. The Earth only has a finite storage capacity for this daily petroleum production.

This is a double blow to the Eco-wackos. Oil is a renewable resource and man’s harvesting of this resource, may be of actual benefit to the eco-system. As horrible as the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster was, the total spill has been estimated at only four times the annual ‘seepage’ rate. The naturally occurring bacteria that are disposing of BP’s mess have been dealing with this natural outflow of Hydrocarbons for millions of years.

One interesting theory on the Bermuda Triangle involves sudden release of underground Methane. Water pressure increases with depth at the rate of one atmosphere of pressure for every 33 ft of depth. To remain a gas, Methane must compressed to the ambient pressure of the underground storage formation. A one cubic foot gas bubble released at 5,000 ft depth under the ocean, would swell to 1,500 cubic feet burst at the surface.

Huge bubbles rising under an unsuspecting surface vessel would break the hull and cause instantaneous sinking. Once above the surface, the lighter than air Methane cloud would disperse and rise into the atmosphere. At some point this cloud would reach optimum stoichiometric ratio and be subject to a massive explosion. Low flying aircraft are full of ignition sources and hitting this invisible Methane cloud would cause a massive explosion. Even formations of aircraft would disappear in an instant fireball, leaving no oil slick and little floating debris.

If a tree falls in the forest it matters not whether there is any sound. That fallen tree represents a potential resource. Man can fashion that tree into useful products or he can burn the cellulose material and recover chemically stored solar energy. Or man can chose to let that tree rot in the forest.

There is nothing inherently superior to the ‘rot in the forest’ option. Rotting wood provides a food source for disease and predatory insects. The outcome is exactly the same with regard to the wood. Portions are returned to the air as carbon dioxide and portions are returned to the soil. The question becomes, is the planet better off if humans ‘control’ the forest or if insects and disease control the forest ?

And so it is with humanity’s newly discovered renewable resource. Will humanity harvest and use this resource or will over-funded pressure groups and expanding government forces overwhelm reason and force unneeded control of this resource?

It is pretty obvious that to harvest this tree, humanity must confront some dreadful Eco-insects and mindless government microbes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest