Will Our Reliance on Hydrocarbons Lead to Another Ice Age?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avemt1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Core
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on concerns about the long-term effects of hydrocarbon extraction on Earth's core and climate. One viewpoint argues that burning fossil fuels does not significantly impact the core's kinetic energy, as combustion requires oxygen, which is absent when coal is buried deep in the Earth. However, the presence of underground coal fires raises questions about the potential for oxidation in the absence of atmospheric oxygen. This leads to a consideration of the risks associated with coal seams being near oxidizing minerals. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexity of interactions between hydrocarbon use and geological processes.
avemt1
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
I have a consern. If we are taking oil, coal, and other natural resources from the Earth that have a large chemical energy due to hydrocarbons, then 100,000 or more years from now when they are supposed to slide under the surface of the earth, will our core start to lose enough of it's kenetic energy to put us into another ice age?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think so, because the energy released when we burn coal and other carbon fuels is the result of the carbon bonding with oxygen. If you bury some burning coal under some dirt, you extinguish it buy eliminating its oxygen source. Coal that is subducted into the Earth's mantle is burried under a lot of dirt, and can't get any air at all, so I don't think the core gets energy from the burning of coal.
 
LURCH said:
I don't think so, because the energy released when we burn coal and other carbon fuels is the result of the carbon bonding with oxygen. If you bury some burning coal under some dirt, you extinguish it buy eliminating its oxygen source. Coal that is subducted into the Earth's mantle is burried under a lot of dirt, and can't get any air at all, so I don't think the core gets energy from the burning of coal.
Then why are there burning underground coal mines?
 
Carbon can oxidize if there's another source of oxygen, for example in black powder the oxidizer is potassium nitrate, KNO3. It is possible the coal seams are close to oxide minerals.
 
selfAdjoint said:
Carbon can oxidize if there's another source of oxygen, for example in black powder the oxidizer is potassium nitrate, KNO3. It is possible the coal seams are close to oxide minerals.
so then there is a conseivable risk correct?
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top