Physics_Kid said:
hi Blank_Stare
the question still remains, is there still organic matter being converted? or is it your belief that at some point in time all the organic material on the surface became buried and compressed and all of it is now one layer in the Earth and all of that material has been converted into the crude oil? or, is it possible that some organic material is still being squished and turning into oil?
I don't believe I said that the process was not possible, or non-existent. I asked, plainly, for a rate of conversion. However, at SOME point, each of those existing deposits is almost certain to be depleted. Are new deposits being created? Surely your idea is based on some evidence, or even some scientific journal or other writings? I'd just like to ponder how many millions of years it will take, at the current conversion rate, to sustain the needs of our current 7 billion humans, before I even start to consider how many of us will inhabit the planet once petroleum is again a practical energy resource.. Maybe we should start burying our garbage in such a way that it is likely to make petroleum, and leave maps for the people that will live millions of years from now? (Just Kidding...)
If the annual production rate is a thimble, then the process is negligible, at any scale that would matter to humans, in any foreseeable future. Even if that rate were 100 tanker cars per year, I suspect that it would still be so small, compared to the need, that it would not be worth pursuing. Of course, if you waited long enough, you might "bank" enough that there would be enough to do something with, but after a relatively short period of time, you would find yourself right back where we are today - that is to say, able to see the end of the resource as we know it. Maybe that's why petroleum is not considered a "renewable" resource, eh?
More to the point, as I understand it, the production of petroleum requires special circumstances. If I understand it correctly, it requires large amounts of organic matter, concentrated into small "containers", which are not exposed to oxygen or the normal weathering, and solar exposure that is the everyday circumstance on the surface of the planet. Otherwise, the material breaks down in the usual methods that we are used to seeing ourselves - namely, rot, and being washed away into the ecosystem.
I suspect the term "diminishing returns" may be applicable, because I don't believe that there is any petroleum production on the planet that could be keeping up with current needs, or even a substantial percentage of our needs. Again, I am not a scientist, and I may not fully understand the processes, but I also can not think of anywhere on the planet that the plants and animals die in large quantities all at once, and, upon dying get encased into an airtight system allowing for the creation of petroleum.
Do you?
.
.
.
I don't know what the ultimate solution to our energy needs is. I am not so arrogant as to believe that I could even understand all the variables. I am, however, pretty sure that it is not in the burning of fossil fuels, nor the production of poisonous lithium batteries.. I am also not so gullible as to believe that Solar (as handled today) is the ultimate answer... nor wind, nor wave, nor nuclear, nor anything else we have on the design boards today.
We've only been trying to solve this problem with any real resolve for a period of time measured in decades. By the time your grandchildren have grandchildren, everything that we have "figured out" up to today will be considered the "infancy" of energy science. In other words, we are really clueless children, throwing sand at each other in the sandbox, each convinced that our own answer is the RIGHT answer. Poppycock.
That doesn't mean we should quit talking about it, however. It just means that we are better served to smile at ideas that are not feasible (i.e, I am still laughing at my boss, who believes in perpetual motion machines as seen on youtube,), and move on to discussing ideas that have real potential.
On the surface of it, I like the idea of using Solar Energy to harvest hydrogen from water, for use when solar production can not keep up with demand. For the SHORT TERM. Someone wiser, and better-read than me would have to asses it for environmental impact, as well as economic feasibility. I just think it sounds good, at first glance. In the long term, I have to think that what we need has not yet been conceived of, but sits just on the horizon, awaiting that next brilliant mind to discover the connections that make it work.
Eventually, however, some better idea has to come along, and when it does, we'd be wise to be poised to make the transition...
...But that's a different discussion.
...
, but can this scale at 53.6 Ampere-Hours per 2241 litres (2g of H), and 1kg of H = ~1gal of gasoline = ~30mi. 
