It's time to leave natural gas ASAP!

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Tuur

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2022
1,600
718
Southeast
✟47,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Tesla Semi just took 36 tonnes over 500 miles (800 km). That's almost from Sydney to Melbourne in one charge.
BOOM!

How long did it take him to charge? Wouldn't think 800 km would seem far in Australia. I ask this question because I've driven over twice that distance in a day in a passenger vehicle (my supervisor then wanted to save money on plane tickets). If we could have only driven 800 km and then had to recharge, the same trip would have taken three days.
 
Upvote 0

Torah Keeper

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2013
917
585
Tennessee
✟37,341.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Governments are being misled by big energy corporations. Do not be fooled – natural gas is a fossil fuel which releases CO2 when burned. But worse, the gas (methane) leaks. It’s 30 times worse than CO2 (over 100 years), but has a 70 times greater effect over just 20 years! The gas pipes leak, making natural gas as bad as coal. They’re also bad for democracy. There’s billions to be made - so natural gas companies hire straw-candidates to throw elections, and even hire actors to distort some local and state democratic processes.

It is NOT an essential “bridging technology” while we “figure out” how to store renewables. We already know! Expensive lithium batteries can bridge the first few minutes – then cheaper off-river pumped hydro can do the overnight and even some seasonal storage.

OBJECTION: all the best hydro dam spots have already been taken and the rest are environmentally sensitive? This is actually true.

ANSWER: So we don’t build them on rivers! Off-river closed-loop PHES can be built even faster than on-river PHES. In 3 to 5 years. This is because:-

A: It is off-river, so it does not have to build tricky river bypasses.

B: The upper and lower reservoirs, the tunnels and power stations can be built at the same time.

Australia has 300 TIMES what it needs in great potential locations

C: When finished the missing water is slowly pumped in from the closest river or ocean, and covered in floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation.

A review of pumped hydro energy storage - IOPscience

Don’t be a fossil-fool – we don’t need more natural gas. Indeed, we should deploy renewables ASAP and start weaning off natural gas to regain national sovereignty over our electricity prices and get away from the crazy international gas market.
I disagree. Natural gas is safe, affordable, and in large supply. It is not a "fossil fuel". That is just evolutionary propaganda.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,512
9,486
✟236,258.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I disagree. Natural gas is safe, affordable, and in large supply. It is not a "fossil fuel". That is just evolutionary propaganda.
1. Because of the environmental impact noted by @eclipsenow it is not safe,
2. Because of the cost (Short, medium and long term) of that environmental impact it is not affordable.
3. Unfortunately it is in large supply, as you say, especially if you like to source your energy from ethically questionable governments.
4. It is, by definition, a "fossil fuel". If you deny that it is formed by decomposition of dead organic matter, which is what a fossil fuel is, then how do you think it formed? And what is your evidence for that mechanism?
5. Evolutionary theory could be utterly discredited tomorrow and it would not alter by one jot the valid description of it as a fossil fuel*.

*It is probable, in my opinion, that a small proportion of natural gas may have an abiogenic origin. That does not justify changing the name for the other 99%+.
 
Upvote 0

Torah Keeper

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2013
917
585
Tennessee
✟37,341.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
It is probable, in my opinion, that a small proportion of natural gas may have an abiogenic origin. That does not justify changing the name for the other 99%+.
This one paragraph here, tells me there is at least a glimmer of hope for you yet. Yes I do deny that it was formed from dinosaur farts 100 million years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,512
9,486
✟236,258.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
This one paragraph here, tells me there is at least a glimmer of hope for you yet. Yes I do deny that it was formed from dinosaur farts 100 million years ago.
Snide, patronising posts such as this do little to encourage productive dialogue.

Please read carefully what I wrote. Natural gas is formed from dead organic matter. I said nothing, zero, zilch, nada, about dinosaurs, or 100 million years. No fossil fuel of any description formed from dinosaurs, or their farts. Either you are displaying profound ignorance of petroleum geology, or it is another example of patronising language. Please restrict your replies to factual, objective comments. Thank you in advance.

You have told me how you think natural gas was not formed. Will you now answer my original question and tell me how you think it did form and provide some meaningful support for the claim.
 
Upvote 0

Torah Keeper

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2013
917
585
Tennessee
✟37,341.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Natural gas is formed from dead organic matter
Nope. If it were, we would not have such an abundance of it. There is simply far too much natural gas for it to have formed from decaying organic matter. Look how much decaying organic matter is turning into natural gas today, and getting trapped in airtight reservoirs underground. Now use that rate to determine how much has formed, and been trapped, in the history of life. Then subtract the amount that leaked out of the Earth from geologic activity(earthquakes, plate tectonics,etc), then subtract the amount that burned up naturally in wildfires, or volcanoes, then subtract the amount that was absorbed into organic matter or metabolized by bacteria, and how much do you have left?

Reservoirs that were tapped out decades ago, have refilled. This is why I believe "fossil fuels" are formed from geologic processes deep in the Earth. Not from dead organic matter(which, if true, would have included dino farts from living and bloated carcasses).
No fossil fuel of any description formed from dinosaurs, or their farts.
Agreed!
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I disagree. Natural gas is safe, affordable, and in large supply. It is not a "fossil fuel". That is just evolutionary propaganda.
Evolution is true. It's how God made us. See my notes on Genesis 1 below.

In the meantime, consider that we KNOW CO2 heats the planet because any decent physics lab on the planet can test it.
It's such basic physics Mythbusters was able to rig up a test in their workshop.
It's just happening - and it's not good. There are ethical responsibilities us Christians have - just as we had in our politics around the time of slavery. It's not something every Christian has to devote themselves to - as we all have different talents and gifts and concerns and responsibilities. But at least understanding the issues and voting to solve them are important.

Denying it all? That's unwise, unacceptable, and basically not a good witness to the God who loves this material world he made as well as us. It's not OUR world - it's ours to manage in stewardship for the King. The king still owns it!


Links to Dickson - Genesis 1​


Reading Genesis is more like reading Shakespeare than an engineering manual or literal history. There’s a false antagonism here. We don’t have a bad reaction to Shakespeare's metaphors in the line - "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!"


We don’t turn around and complain "What nonsense! There's no way any truth is being conveyed in this nonsense because Juliet is obviously not a giant ball of fusing hydrogen millions and millions of miles across!" That would be ridiculous. That would be misunderstanding the genre of the text, reading the poetic as literal. Sometimes poetry is the best genre to explain certain truths, like love or dramatic theology!


Dr John Dickson - with a Phd in history as well as degrees in theology - unpacks Genesis:




"In Genesis 1, multiples of seven appear in extraordinary ways. For ancient readers, who were accustomed to taking notice of such things, these multiples of seven conveyed a powerful message. Seven was the divine number, the number of goodness and perfection. Its omnipresence in the opening chapter of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the origin and nature of the universe itself. Consider the following: The first sentence of Genesis 1 consists of seven Hebrew words. Instantly, the ancient reader’s attention is focused;


The second sentence contains exactly fourteen words. A pattern is developing;


The word ‘earth’—one half of the created sphere—appears in the chapter 21 times;


The word ‘heaven’—the other half of the created sphere—also appears 21 times.


‘God’, the lead actor, is mentioned exactly 35 times.


The refrain ‘and it was so,’ which concludes each creative act, occurs exactly seven times;


The summary statement ‘God saw that it was good’ also occurs seven times;


It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole account is structured around seven scenes or seven days of the week.


The artistry of the chapter is stunning and, to ancient readers, unmistakable. It casts the creation as a work of art, sharing in the perfection of God and deriving from him. My point is obvious: short of including a prescript for the benefit of modern readers the original author could hardly have made it clearer that his message is being conveyed through literary rather than prosaic means. What we find in Genesis 1 is not exactly poetry of the type we find in the biblical book of Psalms but nor is it recognizable as simple prose. It is a rhythmic, symbolically-charged inventory of divine commands." The genre of Genesis 1: an historical approach - Centre for Public Christianity More at his podcast. https://undeceptions.com/podcast/six-days
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
OK - what about BASELOAD solar from space?



It might even create an economic rationale for the moon-base they want to build. Imagine if it was a solar-panel village? That would let it eat into the $10 TRILLION a year energy budget! They could even launch it using electricity from their own solar power - firing the solar panels down a maglev railgun that launches the solar pods back into Earth orbit where they open up and deploy solar panels.

Then we get more people in space which is a good thing in my books. (Space industry has so much to offer!)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,512
9,486
✟236,258.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Nope. If it were, we would not have such an abundance of it. There is simply far too much natural gas for it to have formed from decaying organic matter. Look how much decaying organic matter is turning into natural gas today, and getting trapped in airtight reservoirs underground. Now use that rate to determine how much has formed, and been trapped, in the history of life. Then subtract the amount that leaked out of the Earth from geologic activity(earthquakes, plate tectonics,etc), then subtract the amount that burned up naturally in wildfires, or volcanoes, then subtract the amount that was absorbed into organic matter or metabolized by bacteria, and how much do you have left?
Be my guest. Present those calculations to the forum, along with the validated research to justify the numbers you use. You are the one making the assertion. The onus is on you to justify it. Absent such justification your assertion is empty and can be ignored. Indeed, should be ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Be my guest. Present those calculations to the forum, along with the validated research to justify the numbers you use. You are the one making the assertion. The onus is on you to justify it. Absent such justification your assertion is empty and can be ignored. Indeed, should be ignored.
I hear you! Indeed, the accumulation of algae in shallow warm pond oceans of the Middle East, over tens of millions of years, is the only way to account for the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia.

As a Theistic Evolutionist who thinks they have a BETTER more accurate understanding of the Genre of Genesis - I'm happy to concede this! Indeed, I'm happy for this Creationist debate to move over to the Creationist forum for it because quite frankly it's not what this thread is about, Creationists don't have a leg to stand on in this area, and it bores me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0