Oil does not come from fossils, this is total bullshit!

[Titus Pullo]

Masters of Geophysics from USC here.  a very simplistic explanation:

oil comes from algae and similar single cell organism, deposited and buried on the ocean floor, compressed over millions of years.  Oil is fossilized algae.

coal is from plants and trees before a bacteria that ate cellulose existed.  Trees would fall, not decompose, and new trees grow on top of them.  For millions of years.  They got buried, compressed, and turned into coal.

Ding ding!  We have a winner

Even though I think you're nuts, Wiggs, it's good to have you back   I just wish you'd back somewhat more plausible (if still readily debunked) conspiracy theories...the flat Earth, black Jews and faked Luna landings stuff are all tired.  How about explore the Nazi exodus to Argentina, or how certain agencies -- domestic and otherwise -- might've worked together to kill JFK?

[Teutonic Knight]

Only solar and wind give readily available and endless supply of electricity

Hi GRETA !.

[joswift]

Even if Wiggs was right, a lot of that oil would be inaccessible or not worth the labor processing.  Another example of his sub 90 IQ

Only solar and wind give readily available and endless supply of electricity

we have 12 solar panels on our roof, and a 5kw battery

its doesnt even run a tumble dryer for an hour

They are shit

[timfogarty]

its doesnt even run a tumble dryer for an hour

Wind power is the best way to dry clothes.

[joswift]

Wind power is the best way to dry clothes.

for three months of the year in the UK

[Hypertrophy]

Masters of Geophysics from USC here.  a very simplistic explanation:

oil comes from algae and similar single cell organism, deposited and buried on the ocean floor, compressed over millions of years. Oil is fossilized algae.

coal is from plants and trees from a time before a bacteria that ate cellulose existed.  Trees would fall, not decompose, and new trees grow on top of them.  For millions of years.  They got buried, compressed, and turned into coal.

Better get your money back for that Geophysics degree. A fossil is the mineralized remains of a past living organism. Fossilized algae would be rocks. You would  have a hard time burning rocks.


https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/fossil/

[Hypertrophy]

for three months of the year in the UK

Exactly. It is well known that the peak times for wind power are spring and fall- exactly the times energy demand is lowest. When you need electricity, it is at a peak in summer and winter. Wind power is a non-starter.


A friend of mine works for the General Electric wind power division. Two little known secrets: 1) the wind turbine blades have a very limited lifespan and when they crap out no one can recycle them so they dump them in landfills at a huge cost and 2) windfarms in general are tax subsidized and can't turn a profit without money from the government.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills


https://thepetroglyph.com/what-is-the-viability-of-the-spower-wind-farm-e398e1e42c33

[GymnJuice]

I don't understand why the oil doesn't just leak out the bottom of the flat earth and fall onto whatever is underneath?

[Tapeworm]

Exactly. It is well known that the peak times for wind power are spring and fall- exactly the times energy demand is lowest. When you need electricity, it is at a peak in summer and winter. Wind power is a non-starter.


A friend of mine works for the General Electric wind power division. Two little known secrets: 1) the wind turbine blades have a very limited lifespan and when they crap out no one can recycle them so they dump them in landfills at a huge cost and 2) windfarms in general are tax subsidized and can't turn a profit without money from the government.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills


https://thepetroglyph.com/what-is-the-viability-of-the-spower-wind-farm-e398e1e42c33

I've wondered if solar or wind is energy positive at all. What's required to mine, refine, manufacture, transport, etc, I doubt a solar panel produces enough Kw to make another solar panel.

[IroNat]

Better get your money back for that Geophysics degree. A fossil is the mineralized remains of a past living organism. Fossilized algae would be rocks. You would  have a hard time burning rocks.


https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/fossil/

Algae is a living organism.  Seaweed is a type of algae.

From your link:

"Fossils are the preserved remains, or traces of remains, of ancient organisms. Fossils are not the remains of the organism itself! They are rocks."

[ThisisOverload]

I've wondered if solar or wind is energy positive at all. What's required to mine, refine, manufacture, transport, etc, I doubt a solar panel produces enough Kw to make another solar panel.

I posted a semi-detailed analysis about this several months back.

But overall, on a large scale the answer is no. Mainly because it is not cost effective at all and there is almost no reduction in materials and "fuels". The largest change is in emissions and that is only if you factor in nuclear power.

It costs more to build, install, maintain and remove (short lifespan) a large wind turbine than the amount of energy it creates. Very limited in the areas these even work.

I've worked in Energy for many years and do a ton of solar/wind projects from the engineering and construction side.

Large solar sites are complete shit too. They do not make enough output to pay for themselves before they need to be removed or upgraded. They are only beneficial due to government incentives.

It will be decades before this changes. There will need to be TRILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure upgrades across the US for this to be practical.

Solar on a small scale is only practical if you live in an area that gets a lot of sunshine, so maybe 30% of the planet. But the ability to store the energy isn't there yet.

I have a rental house with solar, it's enough to run lights and a few small appliances. And this house is in the desert of NM and gets over 290 days of sun per year. For my 20k investment, i might have saved $1000 in 2 years. And the panels typically last about 10 years, so unless energy prices skyrocket i'm not even going to break even.

This also ignores the materials needed to build these items, ship them and install them.

"Fossil" fuels aren't goin anywhere in our lifetime. Neither are steel, aluminum, copper and other metals.

And i'm not even going to touch the battery argument, that is an entirely more complicated thing to maintain.

People need to accept it but most people are terrible at economics and supply chains. Or just too biased on the whole "save the planet" thing.

[tommywishbone]

As long as we don't run out of Anadrol and Cypianate I'm cool.

[Marty Champions]

Masters of Geophysics from USC here.  a very simplistic explanation:

oil comes from algae and similar single cell organism, deposited and buried on the ocean floor, compressed over millions of years.  Oil is fossilized algae.

coal is from plants and trees from a time before a bacteria that ate cellulose existed.  Trees would fall, not decompose, and new trees grow on top of them.  For millions of years.  They got buried, compressed, and turned into coal.

yeah dont think so algae drys out

[IroNat]

I looked into solar panels for my house once.  After gov't rebates it would have been around $30,000.

In addition to the rebates there were the energy credits you would get that you could sell on the market.  That possibility made it attractive presuming those continued to be possible.

My electric bill for a year is only about $1,100 so the panels would be worn out and need replacement well before breakeven.

I had several quotes and only one company did an actual analysis of sun exposure and told me my neighbors trees shading my house made it unworkable.

[timfogarty]

for three months of the year in the UK

at least you understood the reference.  I think

[loco]

In theory oil comes from the decomposition of plant matter (carbon) under extreme pressure for very long periods of time.

This is also how coal is formed and diamonds.

Dinosuars had little to do with it.

[IroNat]

They find diamonds near extinct volcanoes.

They are very common and not rare.  Debeers hoards diamonds to control the price.
Debeers has lots and lots of diamonds stored to keep them from flooding the market.

Gold is actually very rare.

[timfogarty]

Better get your money back for that Geophysics degree. A fossil is the mineralized remains of a past living organism. Fossilized algae would be rocks. You would  have a hard time burning rocks.

They paid me.

Each cell of algae and similar single cell organisms contain some chains of hydrocarbons, ie fatty acids.  when they die, some of the single cell organisms sink to the bottom of the ocean where they are buried by silt and other sediments.  After millions of years and under great pressure they'll form more complex chains of hydrocarbons.  They can remain in the shale (oil shale, which is hard to extract from) or move around into more porous layers, like sandstone, which is easy to pump from.

But this distrust of anyone with expertise that doesn't fit your world view is amazing. 

[Dave D]

They paid me.

Each cell of algae and similar single cell organisms contain some chains of hydrocarbons, ie fatty acids.  when they die, some of the single cell organisms sink to the bottom of the ocean where they are buried by silt and other sediments.  After millions of years and under great pressure they'll form more complex chains of hydrocarbons.  They can remain in the shale (oil shale, which is hard to extract from) or move around into more porous layers, like sandstone, which is easy to pump from.

But this distrust of anyone with expertise that doesn't fit your world view is amazing.

Based on the info we have, how fossil fuels are formed  and the size of the earth are there any educated estimates of how much fossil fuel, specifically oil, is available?

[ThisisOverload]

Based on the info we have, how fossil fuels are formed  and the size of the earth are there any educated estimates of how much fossil fuel, specifically oil, is available?

My friend is a Geologist for Saudi Aramco.

A few years ago he told me we have over 300 years of untapped sources.

And that is based on current and projected usage rates.

From what i've learned we don't know, but the problem is a lot of these reserves are incredibly hard to harvest.

The Green Energy push we have today is based on emissions and global warming scares.

Humans have been able to adapt to resources.

The first and most important resource on this planet that will go away is fresh water.

And you don't hear much about that.

[Dave D]

My friend is a Geologist for Saudi Aramco.

A few years ago he told me we have over 300 years of untapped sources.

And that is based on current and projected usage rates.

From what i've learned we don't know, but the problem is a lot of these reserves are incredibly hard to harvest.

The Green Energy push we have today is based on emissions and global warming scares.

Humans have been able to adapt to resources.

The first and most important resource on this planet that will go away is fresh water.

And you don't hear much about that.

Good point.

I’m surprised the fresh water topic is not being pushed harder and pushing for desalination plants.

[Matt]

Masters of Geophysics from USC here.  a very simplistic explanation:

oil comes from algae and similar single cell organism, deposited and buried on the ocean floor, compressed over millions of years.  Oil is fossilized algae.

coal is from plants and trees from a time before a bacteria that ate cellulose existed.  Trees would fall, not decompose, and new trees grow on top of them.  For millions of years.  They got buried, compressed, and turned into coal.

Tim - I can honestly say that due to the impact wrought on my mental health caused directly by the [quite illegal] liberal/leftist policies here in Canada, that I don't think I'd be capable of having a civilized discussion with you. Certainly not without an apology.

There are very few times I would say that, but that's how I feel about you.

Just to give you some information:

You told me that AIDS doesn't disproportionately impact the homosexual male population.

I stated that the per-contact probability of a homosexual male contracting HIV from a person with HIV from anal-receptive sex was 1 in 125. Meanwhile, the odds of contracting HIV from vaginal-penetrative sex is around 1 in 2,400.

But with such a larger number of homosexual men receiving anal sex [as 50% of the members of gay male relationships participate in the highest risk factor sexual activity for HIV], gay men are thus much more likely to be exposed to HIV.

What this means is as a gay man, you could receive anal intercourse from one boyfriend 125 times and BOOM, HIV.

Meanwhile, even if I had a girlfriend with HIV, I would need to have vaginal intercourse with her 2,400 times to get HIV.

The reason why I wanted to share this information is so that people are aware of the increased risks from sleeping with bisexual or homosexual men.

I have two gay male friends who are both tops only, because of this.

They will not receive anal sex.

And that was my only intention - and you chose to deride me as perpetrating gay hate.

Also, the idea of gay men falling apart with AIDS is bullshit. From what I can tell, a lot of 1980's homosexuals were killing themselves with methamphetamines - possibly due to the stress of being given a death sentence which wasn't even accurate.

But there's good news now, Tim: as a result of disgusting comments from people like you, I can honestly say...I sort of do hate gays now. Maybe not hate, exactly, but I would not befriend homosexuals because the risk of being accused of homophobia is high.

To be clear - you had the audacity of accusing me of homophobia for simply stating a medical fact on HIV transmission?

Wow.

All I was trying to do was raise awareness about HIV transmission, Tim.

To be clear - I was not anti-homosexual before.

I am anti-homosexual now.

Defined as: I wouldn't befriend a homosexual, for instance - due to the risk of being accused of homophobia for no reason. Since I don't see this culture changing, I need to protect myself. That said, Jussie Smollett being imprisoned for his fake hate crime was a good start. I also have no tolerance for how far the organized LGBT community is pushing their degeneracy. It's disgusting. I mean - they are normalizing pedophilia now. Utterly disgusting.

[Matt]

A major cause of the world's problems is that we like to divide the world into "them" vs "us".  It is easy to dismiss other people's problems when you see them as a "them".  It is easy to start wars with people when you see them as a "them".   It is harder to do when you see them as part of "us".

THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS DOING.

Disgusting sodomite.

Accusations like that are not those I would tolerate in person. Nothing short of an apology would be accepted, and that would only START the process of me letting go of what you said to me.

Accusing me of anti-homosexual sentiments just for RAISING AWARENESS of the disproportionately high risk of contracting HIV from receiving anal sex?

GFY!

[Matt]

I have many friends who have been HIV positive for over 20 years

LMAO!!!!

HAHAHAHA.

Big shocker there, Tim! So you know many more HIV-infected sodomites? Shocker, like I said.

FYI, I am glad I sought the wisdom of Getbiggers like Wiggs who informed me the risk of getting stool all over my penis, in the event of engaging in anal sex with a woman.

To be honest, I had predicted this,based on a couple of pornographic pictures I watched. I've now been asked to do this by six women.
At no point did I cave.

You know, Tim - the civil rights battle for the LGBT community HAS BEEN WON. I think you might be amazed at how tolerant people are of gay people.

I no longer am though, and would put 50% of that on you.

I believe Denzel Washington had the correct approach at dealing with sodomites in the drugstore scene of Philadelphia:

[Matt]

Amazing Ironage post I wrote, on facts about HIV/AIDS:

Just as I suspected, a series of ad hominem attacks and no rebuttals to the comments I pointed out, as usual.  I find that the higher the IQ of the member, the less likely they are to be offended by my posts.  True story!    Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibility with facts.    Here are some more:

http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~afranc5/Economics_of_Sexuality.pdf

Page 39.

The per-contact probability of HIV transmission is 0.02% for vaginal insertive sex. This means I would have to have sex with 5000 women with HIV before the odds of me getting it strike, or have sex with one woman with HIV 5000 times.

WITH HIV!  LOL.  And there is propaganda targeted towards my demographic?  How mathematically sound is that propaganda?

Compare that to anal-receptive sex where the odds are 0.8%, or one in 125 (40 times the risk). Now let's also use some common sense other than strict science and point out that anal sex is more predominant in the gay community in part due to the lack of pregnancy. Also, the overwhelming majority of the 58,000 people today with HIV are homosexual men or drug users. Straight men are a very small part of this picture.

Don't believe me?  Not that facts are debatable or anything, but here is another link anyway:

Baeten JM, Richardson BA, Lavreys L, et al. Female-to-male infectivity of HIV-1 among circumcised and uncircumcised Kenyan men. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:546-553.

Also, men get HIV more often in Africa due to existence of other diseases and compromised immune systems.  The facts above hold for men with healthy immune systems.

I don't see the point of a system where 88% of the propaganda seems aimed at a group which comprises 12% of the disease carrying population in North America.

http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/368.html

"But the politically incorrect truth is rarely spoken out loud: The dreaded heterosexual epidemic never happened."

"Female to male transmission is very inefficient, says Dr. Nancy Padian a professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the University of California, San Francisco and the author of a 1996 10 year study of HIV infected heterosexual couples, the nation's longest and largest. She points out that "it's two to three times easier for men to infect women." But even so, if there are no other risk factors involved, the rate at which an infected man will transmit the virus to a woman is one in 1,100 sex acts."

All scientific papers I've read on the topic indicate the odds range from 1 in 300 to 1 in 5000 for a male getting HIV from a woman who is infected, and I've read plenty.  Very low no matter how you cut it.

Any rebuttals, post them here and I will rip them piece-by-piece with logic and science.

I am concerned about other STDs - mainly bacterial ones like chlamydia and gonorrhea.

And by the way, it's not that I get extremely angry at HIV propaganda, but as a critical thinking person, it is offensive and promotes ignorance to me.