Re: Re: Re: oil predictions

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> ((((((((((
>
> CB: Our use of H 0 doesn't break it down chemically like oil and
gas, yes ?
>                           2
>
> The amount of water on earth remains constant , no ?
==============
CB,

1]Yes, but the problem is undoing the chemical bonds of stuff that
attaches to it easily, yet costs a boatload of $$$ to separate. Here
we have ecologically remediative economic growth that is only
marginally welfare enhancing; the cost of fixing  problems that may
have been preventable. It's tricky because the relations between
ecology and chemical engineering practices are an ocean of ignorance
despite some incredible science. Lot's more research needs to be done
here, a clear case of taking R&D $$ and science talent from the
weapons makers. Jim O'Connor's 2nd contradiction of capitalism writ
large.

2]Yes, but that's perfect recycling [until we started creating
chemicals that never existed before] within the limits of the 2nd law
of thermo., not renewable resource. Technically the amount of water
available is no longer what it was in the Pleistocene precisely
because we've polluted a bunch of it and neither human's nor
ecological/geochemical processes know how to clean the stuff.

((((((((((

CB: I didn't know about the chemically bonding contamination. How much is contaminated ? Sounds like a small percentage .

How about taking a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen and combining it to make new water ?