 |
| |
|
|
fdgfx
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
No. Self-assembly means that the molecules SELF ASSEMBLE. Dumbshit. |
Why the hostility? Are you a microbiologist, a chemist, or an expert in the fields of nanotechnology?
Molecular Self Assembly is not about molecules finding their own positions just by random. It's us humans who provide the conditions and environments so that molecules will behave in a way we wanted.
For example, surface chemistry is a very important field today. To study the materials such as DNA or proteins, they have to be immobilized on some surfaces first. To do that, many researchers tried to treat gold surfaces with Thiol layers so that DNAs will firmly bind there. Here the DNAs do "self-assemble" on a gold surface, but it would not happen if there are no human interventions.
The bottom line is, the dramatic advances in new technologies will very quickly replacing many ways we used to synthesize materials such as plastics. There is nothing magic about it, it just means humans understand better how the nature works.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
This year they probably will unless we are in another new economy and things are not as they seem again. |
Is this just a nice way of saying "Unless we don't know what the hell we're talking about again"?
Last edited by General Ludd on 20-03-2005 at 18:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
Energy is only one thing that oil is used for. What about plastics and other manufacturing purposes? Solar power, fusion, hydro, ect.. do not even come close to being an oil substitute.
|
True. Oil is used for more than energy but I'm betting that energy is still the pedominant usage of oil (don't have time to search for stats but I welcome anyone to confirm or refute this). If you can reduce the energy usage then there is more oil for the plastics industry.
Also-- any chemists out there that can speak to alternatives to oil in plastics and other areas it is used?? I quite frankly don't know
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
Canada is trying to do our part to cash in . . . err I mean alleviate any enery crunch
quote:
Drillers harvest bumper crop of coalbed gas: At least 3,000 wells forecast for this year
The Edmonton Journal 19 Mar 2005
By Gordon Jaremko
EDMONTON - The new harvest of natural gas from Alberta coal seams is growing fast and shows signs of producing a bumper crop, the provincial energy department reported Friday.
"The amount of activity in this field is pretty phenomenal," said David Breakwell, acting assistant deputy minister in charge of Alberta Energy's gas division.
At least 2,500 coalbed methane wells were drilled in the province last year, he told the Economics Society of Northern Alberta.
The 2004 number was about a 1,000-fold increase since 2000, when tapping Alberta's estimated 620 billion tonnes of coal deposits for gas was still only a research project by a handful of specialist geologists and engineers.
Industry groups, including the Petroleum Services Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, appear to be right to predict at least 3,000 coalbed methane wells will be drilled in Alberta this year, Breakwell said in an interview.
EnCana Corp. alone, as Canada's biggest gas producer, has told farmers in the path of its activity that it plans to drill 6,000 coalbed methane wells over the next three years.
Alberta Energy's latest estimate predicts the province's coal deposits will eventually produce about 70 trillion cubic feet of gas, or an energy gusher equivalent to 12 billion barrels of oil.
But the prediction is only a cautious guess based on experience in the United States where coal-gas drilling dates back more than two decades and accounts for 10 per cent of production, Breakwell said.
Alberta industry already improved on the U.S. record by finding and exploiting a dry, shallow coal formation known as the Horseshoe Canyon, he reported.
The geological layer carpets a wide swath of central Alberta at a depth of 200-800 metres beneath dry plains south of Calgary to woods north of Edmonton. It yields gas almost pure enough to put straight into furnaces without the environmental headache of also flowing salt or fresh water.
New drilling and pipeline technology speeds the coal gas harvest. Wells take less than a day. Pairs of tractors plow 1.5-metre deep but narrow trenches with a big spade, unroll pipe from giant spools then put the earth back at a brisk pace.
Up to eight wells per country section are needed because coalbed methane pressures are low. That is up to eight times the number of conventional gas wells. But directional drilling of multiple holes from single sites limits environmental effects and production equipment such as compressors may be buried, Breakwell said.
Alberta's ultimate coalbed methane potential is estimated at 500 trillion cubic feet, or gas equivalent to 83 billion barrels of oil. But much more technology and knowledge will be needed to tap it all, he said.
About 70 per cent of the coal gas is in the Manville formation, a water-logged and deeper formation than the Horseshoe Canyon. "The real prize is to find a way we can deal with the land and water issues in the wet coal area," Breakwell said. "This will not happen in the next year.
|
Coal-bed methane is an energy source that was largely unknown but is becoming more and more prevalent. While its not "oil" , it is a large energy source that new technology is allowing to be tapped more and more effectively
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
In fact the first plastics did not rely on oil at all. Pchang made a very good point about that. There are all sorts of plant feed stocks usable for plastics synthesis.
Now - for biodiesel, coming from Tyson foods (freshly rendered chicken fat is an excellent feed stock). 
www.mda.state.mn.us/ams/biodiesel/default.htm
and
www.biog-3000.com/04%20Bio%20G-3000...%20reports.html
We already have a taxbreak in place for biodiesal, production is ramping up in the EU and US, and if oil prices keep climbing it will not even need supports. OPEC wanted $30 barrel oil for a reason - thing like oil sands, and now biodiesel, are not economically viable at that price. At over $50 - especially at $80 - they become viable.
However, TANSTAFFL. The free lunch advocated here is no economic impact. As prices climb, you have a larger per centage of your cost going into the energy to produce the item. Prices climb, and econmic growth slows because a basic cost has gone up - you economists can put it into technical terms, but you know what I mean and I am very tired. It like the deficit - after a certain size deficit invariably increases interest rates, which increase the cost of capital. The economy then takes a hit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
Thanks pchang and shawnmmcc.
I suspected there would be oil replacements in that field as well
Oh and shawnmmcc, I would never dispute that high oil prices might start to cripple growth. That is yet anotehr reason OPEC did not want really high oil prices . . . they do not want usage curtailed by an economic downturn.
Only time will tell if the current high oil price will cause such an impact. Here in Alberta its having the opposite effect since it is causing oil companies and the oil service industry to boom with a resulting high demand for steel, workers, and consumables. We are mainly sheltered from the negatives of high oil and will only really feel them once they impact demand in a significant way
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fdgfx
|
|
Exxon Mobile certainly is not going to invest much. Its management predicts that oil price will drop to 30-35 by 2007, and hence no big investments into finding new energy resources. Instead, the company is piling up huge cash hoard to either buy back shares or pay out dividends.
Now that company pays 35% tax on profits and you pay 15% tax on dividends, government is getting its shares from high oil prices, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
In fact the first plastics did not rely on oil at all. Pchang made a very good point about that. There are all sorts of plant feed stocks usable for plastics synthesis.
Now - for biodiesel, coming from Tyson foods (freshly rendered chicken fat is an excellent feed stock).
www.mda.state.mn.us/ams/biodiesel/default.htm
and
www.biog-3000.com/04%20Bio%20G-3000...%20reports.html
We already have a taxbreak in place for biodiesal, production is ramping up in the EU and US, and if oil prices keep climbing it will not even need supports. OPEC wanted $30 barrel oil for a reason - thing like oil sands, and now biodiesel, are not economically viable at that price. At over $50 - especially at $80 - they become viable.
However, TANSTAFFL. The free lunch advocated here is no economic impact. As prices climb, you have a larger per centage of your cost going into the energy to produce the item. Prices climb, and econmic growth slows because a basic cost has gone up - you economists can put it into technical terms, but you know what I mean and I am very tired. It like the deficit - after a certain size deficit invariably increases interest rates, which increase the cost of capital. The economy then takes a hit. |
Eastman Chemical is vertically integrated back to coal (and wood for the cellulose acetate).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-03-2005 15:18
)
|