Pellet stove

Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.

3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by impervious overburden.
Reply to
JoeSixPack
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
pike

(National) Socialist

....Brock.

Reply to
Brock Ulfsen

Actually much cropland is not covered in vegetation.

Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon per acre than heritage varieties.

Some crops grow more Biomas per acre than others, compare strawberries and Sugarcane...

....Brock.

Reply to
Brock Ulfsen

If you eat the corn, much of the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. If you bury it and let it rot, it goes back into the atmoshpere...

....Brock.

Reply to
Brock Ulfsen

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the formation of the solar system.

....Brock.

Reply to
Brock Ulfsen

I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?

so, carbon monoxide (CO) doesn't burn?

Reply to
Solar Flare

Thats about 40 pounds/gallon

Reply to
bogax

The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive, overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol contains.

Reply to
JoeSixPack

So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and about a hundred others. What's your point?

Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?

Reply to
JoeSixPack

I'm no chemist, but: (2)CO + O2 -> (2)CO2 ?

R, Tom Q.

Reply to
Tom Quackenbush

Google "abiotic oil"

Reply to
JoeSixPack

Say what?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Absolute nonsense. There is *no* radioactive decay series that produces hydrocarbons in any fashion.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Oh, yes it does.

And there will eventually be an equilibrium again. Probably at a higher concentration -- possibly *much* higher -- but there will be equilibrium again. Eventually.

Seems you've completely missed the point of the biofuel discussion. There is a qualitative difference in the effect of burning biofuel vs. burning fossil fuel: the carbon in biofuel came from the atmosphere, and returns to the atmosphere when burned -- hence no net change in carbon content in the atmosphere. The carbon in fossil fuel came out of the ground, and burning it produces a net increase in atmospheric carbon.

Reply to
Doug Miller

It wouldn't be "reduced" to anything. It would be *oxidized* from CO to CO2. Simple reaction: 2CO + O2 --> 2CO2.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Good grief Brock.... About the only thing I could understand is part of the first sentance.....

After that it gets a little heavy

Reply to
Shiver

formatting link

Reply to
Steve Spence

That "recent study" was bought and paid for by the oil industry, and is bogus:

formatting link

Reply to
Steve Spence

you claimed it was rarely grown for oil. you were wrong.

as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol from the same bushel, plus animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.

Reply to
Steve Spence

I'd be interested to see the hybrid data for those--that's far different than US hybrids. Who are the seed suppliers and do they have web presence? Are these produced by the US equivalent of the land-grant universities research programs as were/are many of the new varieties here or by commercial seed growers?

I don't recall seeing a commercially grown wheat/barley/rye variety that would be much over 3 ft, even going back to old Turkey Red, the original hard red winter wheat brought over in the 1800s. Extremely tall is bad owing to tendency to go down, of course. Very, very short is a problem as well owing to difficulty in cutting w/o getting into the ground or missing the short heads. On the very rare occasion w/ really high moisture years I can recall some years which may have gotten to mid-chest height, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

We've been growing wheat and grain sorghum here since the early 1900s and the pictures back then of harvest w/ teams and stationary thresher don't show a real significant difference in heights from what I recall in the 50s when I first can really remember up to now...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.