Oil is a product that has well-known uses as gasoline for your car or heating for your home. However, there are countless other things made from oil that most people have no idea about. Here are 7 products made from oil that may surprise you:

1) Curtains
It is possible to turn oil into various kinds of petrochemicals via a refining process. One of these chemicals includes man-made (synthetic) fibers, and it can be used for weaving into curtains, as well as carpets, etc. Synthetic fibers look much better because they are not susceptible to wrinkles. Also, mildew and mold are less of a problem with petroleum-based curtains.

2) CDs
This is another one of the unexpected things made from oil and petroleum products. All products made from plastic (including some of the clothes you wear) are made from petrochemicals. This includes CDs you listen to and cassette tapes you used to listen to before CDs came along.

3) Detergent
The next one of the unexpected products made from oil is detergents. Detergents come in two different kinds: soapless and soapy. Most of the detergents that are soapless are made from petroleum products, like ethylene oxide and various alcohols. These soapless detergents are usually in liquid or powder form and used dishwashers and washing machines.

4) Medications
A lot of medicines are made from chemicals, a lot of which come from oil and petroleum-based products. The active ingredient in many over-the-counter popular pain relievers is ASA (Acetylsalicylic Acid), which is made from petrochemicals. In fact, medicine was one of the most ancient products resulting from oil, dating millenniums back.

5) Plastic Bottles
All plastic is actually made of oil and petrochemicals. This goes for polyester and, of course, many plastic products we use, including plastic bottles. It may be difficult to believe that the perfectly shaped clear bottle is made from a liquid like oil, but it’s true!

6) Film
Film is another one of the unexpected things made from oil. It is made from ethylene, which comes a result of distilling oil. Distilling means heating – the various substances in oil come to a boil at different temperatures. These temperatures can vary and all sorts of products can be made as a result, including camera film.

7) Sneakers
Sneakers are also made of petroleum-based products, especially the rubber soles (which are not actually rubber). Unlike natural rubber, which becomes stiff when cold and sticky when hot, the petroleum-based, man-made rubber is a lot more flexible. Other products that use this rubber include car tires, which is actually safer than using natural rubber. The current demand for synthetic rubber is much higher than demand for natural rubber.

In our world today the availability of energy largely depends on fossil fuel availability. These fossil fuels include oil, coal, and natural gas, and fossil fuel consumption constitutes about 80 percent of the total energy production across the globe. The biggest consumers in the world are China, U.S.A., and the European Union, with about half of the total world fossil fuel consumption attributed to them. According to other fossil fuel consumption statistics, it is mostly natural gas and oil that can be used far away from their extraction source, as it is difficult to transport coal for long distances. Fossil fuel consumption statistics also state that trade in fuels accounted for a total of US$715 billion worldwide in 2004.

However, in the more recent years there has been much criticism of the widespread world fossil fuel consumption. As we hear the word “green” more and more, people all across the globe are starting to understand how important it is to replace harmful fossil fuels with energy sources that are clean and renewable. Of course, there is still a fair share of people who don’t believe in global warming and the harmful effects of fossil fuel consumption, but obvious environmental changes and scientific evidence are making a lot of governments take it more seriously.

The country that is currently leading the world in using renewable energy sources is Iceland, which is just a small island in the middle of the Atlantic. They have embraced the use of hydropower and geothermal energy fully, with about 82 percent of their energy consumption delivered from sources that are renewable. Iceland has done an amazing job at weaning itself off the dependence on harmful fuel consumption and replacing it with sustainable renewable energy sources. Sweden is another good example, although not nearly as great as Iceland, with about 25 percent of its energy needs coming from renewable sources.

Unfortunately, in the United States it’s a different story. Giant oil companies have fiercely opposed the green movement over the recent years, because they know their profits are at stake. However, many Americans understand the reality of the global warming threat and are starting to look into sources of alternative energy. Wind power has become one of the fastest growing markets in the U.S., with various new manufacturing plants for wind turbines opening in the recent years. Also, the U.S. government has instituted rebates, tax credits, and other programs, which encourage its citizens to buy energy saving vehicles, appliances, etc. New businesses and homes in the U.S. are built with products that are considered environmentally friendly, as well as using renewable energy sources wherever possible. Owners also receive substantial tax breaks for using technologies considered “green”. So, there is definitely hope for the United States!

For more information, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

4. It is necessary to build power plants to fill the energy gap.
The energy crisis in California is often quoted to back up this claim. However, this energy crisis was not the result of a lack of electricity. It happened because of the electricity market manipulations, so building nuclear power plants cannot be justified in this case.

5. The waste from nuclear power plants only comes in small quantities.
There are claims that nuclear power plants only produce 1,000 metric tons of waste per year. However, this number conveniently leaves out uranium mill tailings, which actually produce 100,000 metric tons of toxic waste per year, and happen to be radioactive.

6. The likelihood of serious incidents at nuclear power plants is low.

Even when conditions are normal, it is possible for nuclear power plants to have serious incidents. There are many examples of this across the country and the world, including leaks at various plants every few years.

7. A single permanent repository is the optimal solution for nuclear waste.

This one isn’t as much a lie as it is an improbability. No country in the world has so far been able to build anything similar and doubt remains whether this would be effective and actually be able to hold the waste.

Click here for Part 1 of article

Most people have heard that nuclear power is bad, but the reasons on this are fuzzy. To continue keeping our heads fuzzy, the industry feeds us all kinds of myths to counteract the research that confirms how harmful they are. Here are the top 7 nuclear power lies that the industry regularly presents us with:

1. It is cheap to produce nuclear power.
It is often claimed that nuclear power has low production costs, but for some reason the large capital costs that are needed to run nuclear power plants are not included here. The only costs included are just those for operation, fuel, and maintenance. However, the capital costs are so high, that it is difficult for nuclear utilities to even compete after deregulation.

2. Nuclear power plants do not produce carbon dioxide emissions.

This is one of the biggest nuclear power lies of all time. All of the nuclear cycle phases produce CO2 emissions, especially in the phase of uranium mining and the construction of power plants. In total, there is 4-5 times more CO2 emitted from nuclear power than from alternative energy sources.

3. Nuclear power plants are safe.

This is another myth. The truth actually serves as proof that nuclear power is bad. Nuclear power plants all around the world are built on fault lines, and many of these include areas that are susceptible to tsunamis and earthquakes. For example, in the U.S. there are four reactors of considerable size located right on the California coast, which is very earthquake-prone. Virtually none of them is designed to withstand a quake of more than a 7-point magnitude.

Click here to continue reading

You have probably encountered oil conspiracy theories more than once in your lifetime. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you, but there are certain facts, oil secrets if you will, that the oil industry doesn’t want to talk too much about. Here are 3 things you may not know about oil:

The oil change light is flashing again!

1) Changing the oil in your car. This one can easily be called one of the oil conspiracy theories, because everyone believes this myth like it is a sheer fact. The truth is though that the oil in your car does not need to be changed every couple of thousand miles like they tell you. Oil is oil – it doesn’t break down or decrease in quality. The only thing that happens is that it gets dirty and needs a little clean. If you clean out all the particles that have contaminated the oil, you could use it for at least 10 times longer than you normally do. Of course, this is one of the biggest oil secrets in the industry – and for a good reason! No one wants you to suddenly stop buying new oil and start reusing the old one. Imagine if everyone started doing that – where would the profit margins of the oil giants be then? Probably only slightly lower, in reality.

BP earning big from Iraq

2) Plots of land were already scouted by oil companies before the fall of Saddam Hussein. This may come as no surprise to many, especially those into oil conspiracy theories, but new evidence suggests that there were secret memos shared from the U.K. foreign office meeting with BP. The memo quotes that BP saw Iraq as a giant oil prospect and that it was anxious and desperate to get to it. The long-term earning potential was certainly seen as enormous. The only problem was the political unrest. The French giant Total and the Russian Lukoil had also been negotiating future projects long before the fall of Saddam. This is one of the many untold oil secrets.

Bending the statistics

3) The statistics of the oil industry are constantly full of omissions and sometimes outright lies. This is especially true when it comes to talking about “reserves”, which are the estimates of how much oil is left in the known reservoirs. These numbers are constantly “patched-up” by oil companies, the most known one of which is the Middle East reserves. The remaining amount of oil there is overstated by some 110 percent. For other reserves the figures remain the same for many years, which is simply impossible. There are many reasons why they must either be decreasing or even increasing, many of which are geological. If the figures stay the same, then it is valid reason to believe that the oil industry is keeping something from you.

3 – Pickering nuclear power plant, ON.
Although this one isn’t technically in the U.S., the state of New York should be worried about the effects of this Ontario power plant. A mild earthquake has already occurred in Lake Ontario, where a tremor was definitely felt and objects fell to the floor. If a more serious earthquake were to happen, the effects to northern New York State could be devastating. Radiation leakage is also a potential threat and the reason many Pickering home owners have sold their homes and moved to other areas.

4 – San Clemente nuclear power plant, CA.

The San Onofre is the only California Coast plant to make this list. It is located southeast of Long Beach, about 45 miles away and has 2 reactors. Its damage could potentially affect some nine and a half million people.

5) Plymouth nuclear power plant, Mass.

The Pilgrim 1 is also considered potentially dangerous, with the estimated chance of earthquake damage being 1 in 14,493.

Click here for Part 1 of article

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done some research about nuclear power plants in the US, and has determined the most dangerous nuclear power plants there are if an earthquake were to occur. Every year, the Commission has calculated, the chance of a typical nuclear reactor being damage by an earthquake (resulting in radiation exposure for the public) is 1 in 74,176. Scarily, this is 10 times more likely than winning the lottery (even as little as $10,000), where the odds would be 1 in 723,145.

So, what has the Commission found about nuclear power plants in the US? Surprisingly, those along the California coastline, considered the prime earthquake-prone zone, are NOT considered the most dangerous nuclear power plants (except for one). This is because these plants were built to be able to withstand a serious quake if need be. In general, the Commission found it difficult to precisely rank the safety levels of each plant, since there are too many variables to consider. However, it came up with a comprehensive list (taking all risks into consideration) of the most dangerous power plants. Here are 5 of these plants.

1 – Indian Point nuclear power plant, NY.

This facility supplies over 30 percent of the electricity needs of New York City. It is the number one dangerous plant in the country by many calculations. An earthquake will put it at the highest risk of core damage, especially reactor 3 of this power plant. There is a 1 in 10,000 chance this will happen, which is quite a small risk, but according to the Commission, the risk is still large enough to require immediate concern for the public’s safety.

2 – Limerick nuclear power plant, PA.

This plant is located northwest of Philadelphia, about 21 miles. It has 2 reactors which are a hazard should an earthquake occur, the likelihood of which is 3.5 out of 10. The population that could potentially suffer within a 50-mile radius from it is almost 8 million people.

Click here to continue reading

The favorite fossil fuel of the world has been oil, and since the 1960s its consumption in our world has only continued to grow. Giant oil companies refuse to accept any evidence of the fossil fuel global warming connection, continuing to secure more undiscovered reserves. It may seem obvious that with the looming dangers of global warming and the oil consumption hitting its peaks that the world would try to get away from using fossil fuels. But the statistics and predictions tell us otherwise. The future of fossil fuels doesn’t show any signs of reduction in use, and, if anything, it will only increase.

According to the IEA – the International Energy Agency – the average consumption of energy all across the globe will keep on increasing at a rate of about 2 percent per year. If the 2 percent per year increase persists, this means that in 35 years the global energy consumption will double! So, to put these numbers in perspective, the total energy consumption across the globe will be twice as high in the year 2040 as it was in the year 2007. And that is an astronomical increase!

When it comes to global warming, it is very important for us to keep track of the amount of fossil fuels we use, as the future of fossil fuels is likely to only exacerbate the negative effects of global warming. When fossil fuels are burned, they are converted to carbon dioxide. This happens as a result of doing simple things like driving cars and flying to see your family for Christmas. Carbon dioxide is considered a harmful greenhouse gas, which is one of the fundamental causes of global warming. Unfortunately, according to statistics, about 80 percent of the energy used around the world currently comes from fossil fuels.

If we want to even begin to mitigate the harmful effects of global warming, we must reduce of use of fossil fuels in the future as much as we can. As we already mentioned, the energy consumption, going at the current rate, will double in 35 years, and the only way we can stop the effects of global warming is by making a worldwide effort to drastically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels in the future, preferably within the next 10-15 years. We simply cannot afford to live out the scenario predicted by the IEA.

Another factor that is quite dooming is that the current amount of alternative technologies cannot possibly supply all the necessary energy the world needs, so they are not a viable alternative at all. In order to really thwart the effects of global warming, we need to cap our energy use and use energy in more efficient ways in general. This, however, will still not be enough. Our lifestyles will have to change drastically in order to prevent the future of fossil fuels from ruining our world and, in turn, our lives.

For more information, go to:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

Oil production in the United States peaked in 1970, and since then industry analysts have been debating just how long global oil reserves will be able to meet the growing demand. Some analysts believe that global production is reaching its peak right now. You can read about the facts and figures regarding global oil reserves in many articles such as this, but the truth is that no one really knows how much oil is left that can be feasibly extracted. OPEC producers keep it a big secret, as they don’t want to disclose how much oil they have found or think they will find. Some people think that the world is rapidly reaching the point where the growth in new supplies of oil cannot keep up with the the pace of oil depletion. Officials in the oil industry agree that the days of major new finds of cheap oil in well explored countries such as the US are over. There is still plenty of oil, but it is getting ever harder to find. However, as oil extraction technology develops, many prospects that were not economically feasible to develop before are now being developed. In the future, there will be prospects that are not worth developing today that future technologies will be able to handle. For instance, horizontal drilling is a new technology that means new pockets of oil that were previously unaffordable can now be extracted.

In addition to making extraction more feasible, advancements in technology is helping in the search for oil. New fields are being found in areas that were once thought to be fully exploited. For instance, 3D visualization technology now enables geologists to view underground formations to a much higher degree of clarity and detail than before.Whilst the limits of fossil fuel exploration keep being expanded all the time, the fact still remains that the supply is finite. Technology is enabling companies to find more oil, but the ever harder methods of extraction are ultimately going to bring the price of fossil fuels up to the point where alternative methods energy production become much more viable.This can only be a good thing. Far from the energy crises, and the ‘return to the stone age’ scenario that some doomsayers predict, the ending of the world’s reliance on fossil fuels which be a huge step for our civilization.
Although this is not a strict rule, generally the world’s most successful economies have got to where they are because of the major fossil fuels of oil, gas and coal. In the future, the world’s most successful economies are likely to be the ones that have embraced the ‘green revolution,’ and who have developed significant sources of green energy. As has been discussed, with the development of new technologies for exploration and extraction, no one knows quite how long fossil fuels will be economically feasible, but without doubt every country in the world right now should be preparing for this eventuality.

For the original story, and further information on Fossil fuels Reserves, click here

For more information, go to:
en.wikipedia.org,
fossilfuels.org

• Coal mining in the past was not as environmentally friendly, or regulated
• There were a number of different coal mining methods used in the past
• Coal mining in the past was not as safe as the current mining methods used

Coal mining in the past started in the middle of the seventeen hundreds, in the state of Pennsylvania. Over the years, many ways to remove this substance from the earth have been used, with methods being classified as underground or surface. The reason that it was first mined from the earth was not for electricity, but to be used in steel mills. It was not until the eighteenth century that coal was used to generate electricity to light homes and businesses. The first miners used a method called room and pillar, and eventually this method was combined with a method termed retreat. Coal mining in the past depended on workers and supporting the mine walls and ceilings. Rooms were carved out of the mine, and these were supported by massive pillars and beams. Miners would remove the coal from these underground rooms. When retreat mining was done along with room and pillar, the rooms were collapsed as the miners retreated from the mine. This collapse opened up even more coal seams, which could then be recovered. It was not until the middle of the nineteen sixties that this process changed much. This is when longwall mining started being used.

Coal mining in the past includes the longwall mining method as well. This method is much more effective, because a much larger percentage of the seam can be removed. This method uses a machine which carefully collapses a huge part of the room in a controlled manner, allowing a lot more of the seam to be accessed and removed. Surface mining can also be done if the seam is close to the surface. In this method the ground covering the coal seam is removed, then the coal is removed. The ground is put back down and seeded, to return the land back to the original condition. Unlike coal mining in the past, current mining operations do consider their environmental impact on the earth and surrounding areas, but this still does not negate the harmful effects that these operations can have. Coal is a fossil fuel which is not renewable, and it takes millions of years for this fuel to be created. Once it is gone it can not be replaced, and there are limited reserves left in the earth. Coal is mainly used to generate electricity in the United States, and when it is burned it releases large amounts of greenhouse gases and pollution. This causes damage to the environment and speeds up the global warming as well.

Coal mining in the past did not factor in any environmental damage. Because of this many of the areas where this type of mining originated, like the state of Pennsylvania, are full of polluted and contaminated waters and lands. Chemicals and heavy metals caused streams and lakes to become toxic to fish and local wildlife, and even humans suffered from many effects caused by this pollution. Coal is no longer used to heat homes, but it is still used to generate large amounts of electricity in coal burning power plants. This causes high amounts of carbon and other greenhouse gases to be released into the air, and to damage the ozone layer. There is also substantial particle pollution released when coal is burned, and this pollution can cause asthma and other medical conditions in people who breath in these irritants. Safety is also another factor which has improved over time, and today miners and mining operations are done in a much safer manner. The processes have changed since the beginning of coal mining, but the damage done to the environment is still substantial and should be stopped.