![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Unfortunately many people still believe that oil is a "fossil fuel", but it's important to note what said Sir Fred Hoyle: "The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." 189.32.131.93 ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Do people really still believe the abiogenic theory? It seems a bit of a generalisation to state that Russia + rest-of-world believes in this!
And where does the stuff about hydrocarbons on other bodies in the solar system come from? Seems a bit hand-wavy to me. - 15:03, 14 February 2003 Cferrero
Nowadays the term "fossil fuel" can be considered obsolete. Mineral fuels is suitable term. Natural hydrocarbons (oil and gas) comes deep from earth's mantle by degassing of primordial materials. When they reach shallow pressure levels in crust occurs contamination by bacteria. Major part of coals also are not a "fossil fuel", except lignites (brown coals). Black coals may be considered as solid hydrocarbons with hydrogen loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.107.19 ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 September 2006
Please read two papers published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS):
www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/17/10976 and www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14023
It is my understanding that the Russians discovered that oil is the product of the high temperature (≈1500 °C), high pressure (≈5 GPa) continuous reaction among calcium carbonate, iron oxide and superheated steam, occurring about 100 km below us, soon after the end of WWII and that is why they have come from nowhere to be one of the world's major players in the oil business. One of the PNAS papers mentioned above describes a laboratory reactor vessel in which petroleum was manufactured from the above-mentioned three components, under sterile conditions. Pejam ( talk) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Pejam
OK, I can see this is going to turn into a lengthy discussion! As far as methane, I and most other supporters of the biogenic theory would have no problem in acknowledging an abiogenic cause for some, if certainly not all, subsurface methane. What we would have issue with is how you can create a complex hydrocarbon from C and H only by increasing pressure. Perhaps you could point me towards some publication where this has been done?
It is not the origin of simple hydrocarbons such as methane and other C1 to C4 hydrocarbons that is in question - everyone believes that they can have abiogenic origins. It is the creation of economic quantities of heavier hydrocarbons which is in discussion - the biogenic theory suggests these are created by the thermal maturation of dead organic matter, the abiogenic theory suggests these are created at great depths by inorganic processes and then migrate up towards the surface.
The main reasons the world didn't run out of oil in the 1970s were:
Final note: carbon isotope evidence in Nature shows that though some hydrocarbons have been found at hydrothermal vents, their isotopic carbon signatures are significantly different from those seen in economic gas reservoirs, which would refute any link between (minor) abiogenic hydrocarbon generation at vents and major hydrocarbon accumulations in reservoirs.
So in conclusion, I'm afraid I have not been convinced that there are any economic hydrocarbon reserves where there is no possible biogenic origin and for which only an abiogenic theory will suffice. However, I suspect that this conversation is starting to extend beyond the remit of Wikipedia. Can we agree that the majority of oil geologists assume the biogenic theory to be correct, and that the abiogenic theory is still only held by a minority? If so, then the current weighting towards the biogenic theory in the actual article seems justified. If you wish to carry on this conversation by email I would be only too happy. :) cferrero
As Coal is not a hydrocarbon, though it does contain some hydrocarbons, I shall modify this slightly. PML.
The article states "Biogenesis remains the minority theory". I am pretty sure that it is the majority theory. I would edit it, but I'm probably more ignorant on this issue than you fine people here. ;-) So please edit it if I am right, otherwise forgive my ignorance. :-p
Edit: I did some googling and changed it (also based on the context). But the wiki said that someone else changed it while I was busy... Thanks. I found this on various sites thru google: "Nowadays, however, the biogenic theory is widely regarded as correct" - Mr. Anonymous Coward
I just thought that I would point out that there is a good reason why certain metals (such as V, Ni, Pb, Zn, etc.) do have strong ties with hydrocarbon deposits. One of the reasons is because organic porphyrin molecules (similar to chlorophyll) have a 2+ metal ion that generally occurs as Mg2+ in the organism, but is replaced by other metal cations over geologically short periods of time without needing to travels thousands of kilometers. These porphyrins do break down over time depending upon what metals occupy those chemical sites, releasing those metals. Other organic acids, such as ethanoate can then transport some of the metals to create nearby ore types. This is especially common for Pb, and Zn which is one of the prevailing hypotheses for how Mississippi Valley Type (MVT) deposits are formed in close proximity to hydrocarbon deposits.
The principle of supply and demand suggests that as hydrocarbon supplies diminish, prices will rise. It has therefore been pointed out that higher prices will lead to increased supplies as previously uneconomic sources become more economical to exploit. Artificial gasolines and other renewable energy sources presently require more expensive production and processing technologies than conventional petroleum reserves, but may then become economically viable.
According the The End of Oil, this is false. The reasoning is that this principle only works when we extract the "easy oil" first, but we have to extract the "hard oil" first because the "easy oil" is tied up in OPEC countries. Brianjd 07:05, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
However, there will always be deposits of oil that are harder and harder to extract. It is impossible to completely exhaust a resource. There may come a time when oil is extracted only as a luxury item because it is so scarce, but then other alternative fuels will be economically competitive. We certainly won't suddenly "run out" and be left with a crisis. - Bonus Onus 23:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
-- 85.70.33.55 02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Easy-to-reach oil cost $3 per barrel to extract today. They sell it $70 per barrel. Medium-to-reach oil would cost $10-20 to extract. Hard-to-reach oil would cost $20-70 (Source by International Energy Agency). M-to-R oil adds at least 100 years with the same selling price. Canada has already started to extract some M-to-R oil.
Shouldn't carbon be included explicitly as a defining substance of fosssil fuels? For coal carbon is the dominant constituent, hydrocarbons give only flavour. Compare also anthracite coal - "pure specimens ... 100% carbon".
I see a prevous short comment in support of carbon, obviously not retained followed. I contributed an edit (22:25, 2005 Jan 17),maybe not best. It was reverted.
Does anyone second the proposal that "carbon" is included as a defining constituent of "fossil fuel"? MGTom 07:28, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
As I currently read the article, it says: "There are two theories on the origin of fossil fuels..."
The page seems to lump together coal and oil as "fossil fuels, but I doubt if there are "two theories" about the origin of coal. It's clearly of biologic origin; just look at the full spectrum of intermediate forms from rotting vegetation, to peat moss, to soft bituminous coal (doesn't it still sometimes have leaf-form traces in it?), to hard anthracite coal. I think it's only oil (and maybe natural gas?) whose origins might be disputed. So perhaps that sentence should be re-worded?
Also, other commentators here have alluded to something that I think needs to be stated explicitly... the term "fossil fuel" inherently means of biologic origin: that's what a fossil is. Therefore, if the biologic origin of oil (for example) is being disputed, then its status as a "fossil fuel" is also being disputed... and the headlines/ overall category names need to be broadened. Perhaps "geologic fuels"? But that might bias the point in the other direction... Also petroleum is not just a fuel; it has important uses as a raw material in manufacturing.
Sorry I have no clear suggestions for dealing with these terminological issues; I just wanted to clearly state what they were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.222.140 ( talk • contribs) 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why William Connolley thinks that the argument about this graph (see the link on its talk page) is not sorted out. He endorsed the view that the extrapolation is reasonable, that it doesn't imply anything about the cause of the variation, that it has a NPOV, and that it is only borderline original. I invite him to explain what the remaining objections are. — James S. 01:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Aude, explanation here, has reverted, with the log comment, "This article is about fossil fuel, not extreme weather events and costs." I maintain that there is a direct relationship, and am editing as follows: My edits to the text show the direct relationship, and I am including the 2nd revision of the graph (by decade) instead of the detailed historical graph. Please note that both graphs are well within each others' 95% prediction confidence interval. — James S. 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
everybody puts articles on wikipedia saying that we should conserve etc. But how are you as an indivisual trying to help and conserve? —This unsigned comment is by 202.156.6.54 ( talk • contribs) .
I searched up "fossil fuels" on Wikipedia for more information on where fossil fuels come from (why are they called "fossil" fuels?); could someone possibly write in the introduction more about what exactly fossil fuels are, explaining fossilized remains and how they work as a source of energy, as well as the history of how/when they were discovered and who thought up of using them as an energy source?
Thank you!
Bloody rox 21:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Bloody Rox
In addition, could there also be included some information on the various locations of fossil fuels on the planet? Or is this information included in a different article?
Quite confusing, as there are varying terms to describe a similar topic, but not connecting with each other. I searched "fossil fuels" for the sole purpose of finding technical information, and not particularly information on human usage and environmental effects (which I can easily find by searching "global warming"). Can someone please assist with these questions? It would be very helpful. Thank you.
In other words, less on human usage and environmental effects (which is more relevant to "global warming") and more on the history and origin of fossil fuels.
Bloody rox 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Bloody Rox
seconded.
Could someone add metric conversions to all the figures in this page - From imperial units (and admittedly industry standards) to cubic kilometers or even cubic decimeters (ie. litres), kilograms (ie. tonnes) and joules? It would help us SI people to understand the numbers better. - G3, 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Is a good thing to look up on the wikipedia to find out exactly the question?
This page should probably be flagged for not being written in encycplopedic fashion. Thanks
I corrected someones change to the first link the subsidies section so that it still points to a page, rather than being broken. However, I question whether it is a reference to be taken seriously in the first place, it is certainly not neutral or balanced and provided little support for its own claims.
Also, the second link, http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm, is broken and I cannot figure out the correct thing it should be linking to. Does anyone know where the original cited document was moved to?
Jeff Janes 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about organized opposition to fossil-fuel use. I dimly recall that even before 1989 (when the Global Warming theory first attracted worldwide attention) many activists were campaigning against fossil fuels. -- Uncle Ed 16:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone let this layman know how many pounds of biomass it takes to breakdown into a barrel of crude? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.230.176.185 ( talk) 05:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
There are quite a few places where this article mismatches data in other bits of Wikipedia e.g. reserves figures at Methane clathrate, non inclusion of other fossil fuel sources. Also it would help ref Global Warming if the total fuel figures were also given in gigatonnes of carbon, also the discussion of hubbert peak theory (which is strictly limited to one extraction technology) doesn't quite look right. I think the article would benefit from some updates/ cross comparison. I don't really want to jump into an article where I haven't been involved. Anyone interested in helping? -- BozMo talk 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The numbers in the introduction to the article regarding worldwide energy consumption (98% fossil fuel) say the remaining 14% (!) comes from other sources. The percentages should be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.196.242 ( talk) 17:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
AIE new estimates (dated 12/09/2007) gives
85.9 MDB for 2007
88 MDB for 2008
It would be good to have a graph representing consumption and estimated reserves, and eventually number of years of oil.
at the time i tried to add something about it the page was locked. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bloublou (
talk •
contribs)
08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 6.3 billion metric tons (= 6.3 gigatons) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount so there is a net increase of 3.2 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year.[4]
I think this is a bit misleading -- the total CO2 is around 25 gigatons/year while total C is around 7 or 8, so 6.3 looks plausible for Carbon, but way too low for carbon dioxide.
209.143.91.34 ( talk) 14:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please remove billion and use thousand million/giga instead. Similarly to imperial units, billion=10^12 for majority (non americans) 92.11.185.214 ( talk) 10:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please decide whether the term "ton" or "tonne" is to be used in this entry? It seems to be used interchangeably throughout, but 1 ton = 2240 lbs. while 1 tonne = 1000kg. Thank you. Wperdue ( talk) 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Neither the barrel figure nor the m3 can be used by ordinary (US) readers to get an idea of the amounts. It would be nice if s.o. could quote that in gal. THKS. 71.236.26.74 ( talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I recommend also adding scientific notation, eg "2.5 Billion (2.5 x 10 9th power) since Billion, Million, Quadrillion, etc still have more than one meaning world wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.228.157 ( talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please explain the difference between "atmospheric carbon dioxide" and "real carbon dioxide", and why there is a 44/12 conversion factor? Dbfirs 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC) My guess is that 44/12 is the conversion factor from "atmospheric carbon dioxide" to carbon. I've edited the article to reflect my guess, but could someone please check. I'm not an expert in this field. Dbfirs 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."' Sir Fred Hoyle, 1982. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.46.231 ( talk) 01:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this table as I don't see how it is at all relevant to the article. Feel free to add it back if you can explain how it is of use. Smartse ( talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The article states that:
"The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide)."
This may be accurate, but the chart which shows a dramatic increase in the emissions of carbon from the use of carbon-based fuels seems to show a different amount. The chart, titled : Global Carbon Fossil Emissions ends at yr 2004 with a total emission level of 8000 Million Metric Tons per year. Extrapolating on the steep curve does not look like it will reach a level 2.5 times the 2004 level by 2009. Also, if the 2004 level is only 8 billion tons per year amd natural processes can absord 10.65 billion tonnes per year, then why would the level of carbon in the atmosphere have been growing?
I have seen this chart elsewhere. If all of this is accurate, would someone please clarify. 71.241.228.157 ( talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem that I had was distinguishing between Carbon and CO2. I went back and compared the weights per mole of Carbon, Oxygen and CO2 and discovered the ratio and found that the numbers were consistent and THEN I saw the parenthetical explanation : "(one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide)". Because of the importance of this distinction I think it would be good to include a note next to or below the Carbon graph such as "Note: Carbon only represents 27% of the weight of CO2". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.228.157 ( talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a citation needed tag to the 4.1 billion barrels figure. So far I've only found a figure for the US reserves (~727 million barrels ( http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/ | DOE website)). Other countries have reserves, so if anyone has references please add them. JJJJS ( talk) 06:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph says this...... " amounting to an 86.4% share for fossil fuels in primary energy consumption in the world.[4] Non-fossil sources in 2006 included hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 8.5%, and others (geothermal, solar, tide, wind, wood, waste) amounting to 0.9 percent " Which adds up to more than 100 percent (102.1%). At least one of the numbers is wrong....someone should fix this error. I don't have the time or expertise to do more than point it out.... thank you in advance....
Also, it is probably wrong, since it does not contain any allowance for wood, which is the only cooking fuel used in at perhaps a third of households worldwide...probably only refers to commercial energy transactions, not total energy used.
Avram Primack ( talk) 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Coal ...
Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall by Alex Morales November 25, 2011; excerpt ...
Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis and an impasse at the United Nations global warming talks. Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.
99.190.86.93 ( talk) 04:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think this: "The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.[6]" needs to be removed - as shown in the diagram on carbon cycle total fossil fuel reserves (~4000Gt) are the equivalent of around 70 years of photosynthesis (60x70=4200). Can anyone suggest how the cited sentence could be correct? Smartse ( talk) 10:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following from the lede section, where it doesn't belong when there's not treatement of the material elsewhere in the article and it doesn't summarize what material is in the article:
Fossil fuels are
fuels formed by natural processes such as
anaerobic decomposition then geologic compression and heating of buried dead
organisms such as
cyanobacteria and plants who originally stored solar energy in chemical bonds through the process of
photosynthesis (leading some to term such fuels 'archived' photosynthesis).
[1]
This reference is a poor one for use here. What we need are references that give a general summary of the origin of fossil fuel, at least some with emphasis on the cycle of photosynthesis->plants growth->animal growth->plant and animal death->decay in conditions that produce fossil fuel. I'm not finding such sources quickly with simple searches. The material is easily available, it's just the choice of a sound reference that's eluding me at the moment. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
References
Considering that the OECD estimated $523 billion a year is spent on fossil fuels subsidies around the world, we should include this estimate, explain why it is subsidized and by which countries. - Shiftchange ( talk) 00:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I get a reference to the commonly held misconception that fossil fuels are derived from "dead dinosaurs"? I just added this to the page for petroleum: "It was once commonly thought that fossil fuels, like petroleum, were derived from so-called "dead dinosaurs". However, further scientific investigation has revealed that this cannot be the case, as fossil fuel formations have been dated to as many as 300 Ma, whereas the first dinosaurs did not appear for another 75 million years."
Source: Horn, Geoffrey M. (2010). Energy Today: Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. New York, New York: Infobase Publishing, Chelsea House Publishers. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-4381-3220-4.
Thanks in advance. 24.20.203.54 ( talk) 06:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Under the Reserves section, it talks about flows as production. I'm assuming (by the numbers they are talking about), it is talking about how fast the material is being mined from the reserves...?
I don't know if anyone knows a source, but I think an interesting addition to the article would be how fast fossil fuels are actually being generated (with the million year process, it has to be a very low number, but the earth is big and old, I imagine someone has to of figured out roughly how much, say coal, is produced by the earth every day). As mentioned in the intro, they are strictly speaking renewable, and it would be interesting to see the (how many..?) order of magnitude difference in production and consumption.
I didn't find anything in a quick search of online resources :(
(Also, I would say the word production is ambiguous. When I first read it i thought of the earth producing new fossil fuels, not humans mining. Maybe it should be clarified?) StarDolph ( talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt many industry sources would be talking both about generation and extraction, like this article does. I made a slight clarificaiton, changed "flows are production" to "flows are production of fossil fuels from these reserves"
Interestingly, when reading http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html , it sounds like fossil fuel deposits might of been more generally formed from major events (such as a lake or marsh drying up, or a mass extinction) instead of a steady process, which is what I would of expected. Still, it seems like someone must have done a study of generally how much material transitions from fossilized remains to say, oil over a time period.... StarDolph ( talk) 00:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is hopelessly imprecise. How old is the most recent organic source of fossil fuel? 2 million years old? Or 50 million years? Something between? Or more than 50 million? Koro Neil ( talk) 07:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In 2015 I made an attempt to compare fossil fuel consumption with a financial investment using "Uncle Helios" [1]
Environmental effects seem to focus on the consumption end, but almost every single day somewhere in the US (and elsewhere in the world) there occurs some disaster wherein a fuel-laden tanker truck or fuel-carrying train crashes and spills its toxic load, or explodes into a fireball on the highway, or where some fuel-carrying oceangoing vessel dumps or spills some of its contents, or where a fuel pipeline leaks or bursts, poisoning people's groundwater. The collective effect of these thousands of disasters must be felt over time, must it not? Pandeist ( talk) 04:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fossil fuel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name is George and not Georg. Typo Yajas Malhotra ( talk) 14:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://acaa.affiniscape.com/associations/8003/files/2004_CCP_Survey%289-9-05%29.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It is difficult to imagine how attributing a quote to a specific source can be so controversial. "Rodman also indicated the use of fossil fuels may seem beneficial to our lives, this act is playing a role on global warming and it is said to be dangerous for the future." Unless there are objections to this, I will reinstate this. Otherwise, it is written as an opinion. A Simple Name ( talk) 22:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth investigating whether EPA regulations have been changed since the (semi)recent change in administration in the US. JustJordan ( talk) 23:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The theory that fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over millions of years was first introduced by Georgius Agricola in 1556 and later by Mikhail Lomonosov in the 18th century.
Are there any alternate theories? 24.138.60.176 ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fossil fuel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2602:306:B87E:F640:5515:49DE:97AF:E382 ( talk) 00:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fossil fuel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to remove that "it takes millions of years to form fossil fuels" Barbecue it doesn't. And can't considering that the world is roughly 6000-8000 years that would be impossible. 2600:1005:B012:82E3:1105:223F:1E02:7B93 ( talk) 21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Numbers given under "Oil reserve" confirms the earth has 43 years of supply. Please say that outright. Or modify those numbers as you want. You can delete my comment after reading it. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.212.183 ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, In the past this article or one related included a pie chart showing proportions of fossil fuels used in various modes of transportation. Ie. proportions of gasoline, jet, marine bunker, road diesel, rail diesel and etc. consumed worldwide. Is such chart still available? I failed to find one in Commons. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It says, "The United States Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2007 the world's primary energy sources consisted of..."
-- 100.4.149.76 ( talk) 15:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I skimmed the article, and except for the idea that they come from fossils or organic life, I didn't quickly see the process of Origin and formation of these fuels. HOW did they get so far underground, for example? They are even under the oceans. What kind of massive event(s) at Earth caused certain of this? Misty MH ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Scientific reasons 'fossil fuels' can't possibly be from fossils or any organic materials. Organic material has Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon. 'Fossil fuels' do not have all three. It's a political term. So really your whole article needs editing.
Fossil Fuels" are not Fossil Fuels.
No such thing as fossil fuels?
Colonel L. Fletcher Proudly - Where the term 'fossil fuel' started — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejack007 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Unfortunately many people still believe that oil is a "fossil fuel", but it's important to note what said Sir Fred Hoyle: "The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." 189.32.131.93 ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Do people really still believe the abiogenic theory? It seems a bit of a generalisation to state that Russia + rest-of-world believes in this!
And where does the stuff about hydrocarbons on other bodies in the solar system come from? Seems a bit hand-wavy to me. - 15:03, 14 February 2003 Cferrero
Nowadays the term "fossil fuel" can be considered obsolete. Mineral fuels is suitable term. Natural hydrocarbons (oil and gas) comes deep from earth's mantle by degassing of primordial materials. When they reach shallow pressure levels in crust occurs contamination by bacteria. Major part of coals also are not a "fossil fuel", except lignites (brown coals). Black coals may be considered as solid hydrocarbons with hydrogen loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.107.19 ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 September 2006
Please read two papers published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS):
www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/17/10976 and www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14023
It is my understanding that the Russians discovered that oil is the product of the high temperature (≈1500 °C), high pressure (≈5 GPa) continuous reaction among calcium carbonate, iron oxide and superheated steam, occurring about 100 km below us, soon after the end of WWII and that is why they have come from nowhere to be one of the world's major players in the oil business. One of the PNAS papers mentioned above describes a laboratory reactor vessel in which petroleum was manufactured from the above-mentioned three components, under sterile conditions. Pejam ( talk) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Pejam
OK, I can see this is going to turn into a lengthy discussion! As far as methane, I and most other supporters of the biogenic theory would have no problem in acknowledging an abiogenic cause for some, if certainly not all, subsurface methane. What we would have issue with is how you can create a complex hydrocarbon from C and H only by increasing pressure. Perhaps you could point me towards some publication where this has been done?
It is not the origin of simple hydrocarbons such as methane and other C1 to C4 hydrocarbons that is in question - everyone believes that they can have abiogenic origins. It is the creation of economic quantities of heavier hydrocarbons which is in discussion - the biogenic theory suggests these are created by the thermal maturation of dead organic matter, the abiogenic theory suggests these are created at great depths by inorganic processes and then migrate up towards the surface.
The main reasons the world didn't run out of oil in the 1970s were:
Final note: carbon isotope evidence in Nature shows that though some hydrocarbons have been found at hydrothermal vents, their isotopic carbon signatures are significantly different from those seen in economic gas reservoirs, which would refute any link between (minor) abiogenic hydrocarbon generation at vents and major hydrocarbon accumulations in reservoirs.
So in conclusion, I'm afraid I have not been convinced that there are any economic hydrocarbon reserves where there is no possible biogenic origin and for which only an abiogenic theory will suffice. However, I suspect that this conversation is starting to extend beyond the remit of Wikipedia. Can we agree that the majority of oil geologists assume the biogenic theory to be correct, and that the abiogenic theory is still only held by a minority? If so, then the current weighting towards the biogenic theory in the actual article seems justified. If you wish to carry on this conversation by email I would be only too happy. :) cferrero
As Coal is not a hydrocarbon, though it does contain some hydrocarbons, I shall modify this slightly. PML.
The article states "Biogenesis remains the minority theory". I am pretty sure that it is the majority theory. I would edit it, but I'm probably more ignorant on this issue than you fine people here. ;-) So please edit it if I am right, otherwise forgive my ignorance. :-p
Edit: I did some googling and changed it (also based on the context). But the wiki said that someone else changed it while I was busy... Thanks. I found this on various sites thru google: "Nowadays, however, the biogenic theory is widely regarded as correct" - Mr. Anonymous Coward
I just thought that I would point out that there is a good reason why certain metals (such as V, Ni, Pb, Zn, etc.) do have strong ties with hydrocarbon deposits. One of the reasons is because organic porphyrin molecules (similar to chlorophyll) have a 2+ metal ion that generally occurs as Mg2+ in the organism, but is replaced by other metal cations over geologically short periods of time without needing to travels thousands of kilometers. These porphyrins do break down over time depending upon what metals occupy those chemical sites, releasing those metals. Other organic acids, such as ethanoate can then transport some of the metals to create nearby ore types. This is especially common for Pb, and Zn which is one of the prevailing hypotheses for how Mississippi Valley Type (MVT) deposits are formed in close proximity to hydrocarbon deposits.
The principle of supply and demand suggests that as hydrocarbon supplies diminish, prices will rise. It has therefore been pointed out that higher prices will lead to increased supplies as previously uneconomic sources become more economical to exploit. Artificial gasolines and other renewable energy sources presently require more expensive production and processing technologies than conventional petroleum reserves, but may then become economically viable.
According the The End of Oil, this is false. The reasoning is that this principle only works when we extract the "easy oil" first, but we have to extract the "hard oil" first because the "easy oil" is tied up in OPEC countries. Brianjd 07:05, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
However, there will always be deposits of oil that are harder and harder to extract. It is impossible to completely exhaust a resource. There may come a time when oil is extracted only as a luxury item because it is so scarce, but then other alternative fuels will be economically competitive. We certainly won't suddenly "run out" and be left with a crisis. - Bonus Onus 23:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
-- 85.70.33.55 02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Easy-to-reach oil cost $3 per barrel to extract today. They sell it $70 per barrel. Medium-to-reach oil would cost $10-20 to extract. Hard-to-reach oil would cost $20-70 (Source by International Energy Agency). M-to-R oil adds at least 100 years with the same selling price. Canada has already started to extract some M-to-R oil.
Shouldn't carbon be included explicitly as a defining substance of fosssil fuels? For coal carbon is the dominant constituent, hydrocarbons give only flavour. Compare also anthracite coal - "pure specimens ... 100% carbon".
I see a prevous short comment in support of carbon, obviously not retained followed. I contributed an edit (22:25, 2005 Jan 17),maybe not best. It was reverted.
Does anyone second the proposal that "carbon" is included as a defining constituent of "fossil fuel"? MGTom 07:28, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
As I currently read the article, it says: "There are two theories on the origin of fossil fuels..."
The page seems to lump together coal and oil as "fossil fuels, but I doubt if there are "two theories" about the origin of coal. It's clearly of biologic origin; just look at the full spectrum of intermediate forms from rotting vegetation, to peat moss, to soft bituminous coal (doesn't it still sometimes have leaf-form traces in it?), to hard anthracite coal. I think it's only oil (and maybe natural gas?) whose origins might be disputed. So perhaps that sentence should be re-worded?
Also, other commentators here have alluded to something that I think needs to be stated explicitly... the term "fossil fuel" inherently means of biologic origin: that's what a fossil is. Therefore, if the biologic origin of oil (for example) is being disputed, then its status as a "fossil fuel" is also being disputed... and the headlines/ overall category names need to be broadened. Perhaps "geologic fuels"? But that might bias the point in the other direction... Also petroleum is not just a fuel; it has important uses as a raw material in manufacturing.
Sorry I have no clear suggestions for dealing with these terminological issues; I just wanted to clearly state what they were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.222.140 ( talk • contribs) 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why William Connolley thinks that the argument about this graph (see the link on its talk page) is not sorted out. He endorsed the view that the extrapolation is reasonable, that it doesn't imply anything about the cause of the variation, that it has a NPOV, and that it is only borderline original. I invite him to explain what the remaining objections are. — James S. 01:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Aude, explanation here, has reverted, with the log comment, "This article is about fossil fuel, not extreme weather events and costs." I maintain that there is a direct relationship, and am editing as follows: My edits to the text show the direct relationship, and I am including the 2nd revision of the graph (by decade) instead of the detailed historical graph. Please note that both graphs are well within each others' 95% prediction confidence interval. — James S. 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
everybody puts articles on wikipedia saying that we should conserve etc. But how are you as an indivisual trying to help and conserve? —This unsigned comment is by 202.156.6.54 ( talk • contribs) .
I searched up "fossil fuels" on Wikipedia for more information on where fossil fuels come from (why are they called "fossil" fuels?); could someone possibly write in the introduction more about what exactly fossil fuels are, explaining fossilized remains and how they work as a source of energy, as well as the history of how/when they were discovered and who thought up of using them as an energy source?
Thank you!
Bloody rox 21:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Bloody Rox
In addition, could there also be included some information on the various locations of fossil fuels on the planet? Or is this information included in a different article?
Quite confusing, as there are varying terms to describe a similar topic, but not connecting with each other. I searched "fossil fuels" for the sole purpose of finding technical information, and not particularly information on human usage and environmental effects (which I can easily find by searching "global warming"). Can someone please assist with these questions? It would be very helpful. Thank you.
In other words, less on human usage and environmental effects (which is more relevant to "global warming") and more on the history and origin of fossil fuels.
Bloody rox 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Bloody Rox
seconded.
Could someone add metric conversions to all the figures in this page - From imperial units (and admittedly industry standards) to cubic kilometers or even cubic decimeters (ie. litres), kilograms (ie. tonnes) and joules? It would help us SI people to understand the numbers better. - G3, 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Is a good thing to look up on the wikipedia to find out exactly the question?
This page should probably be flagged for not being written in encycplopedic fashion. Thanks
I corrected someones change to the first link the subsidies section so that it still points to a page, rather than being broken. However, I question whether it is a reference to be taken seriously in the first place, it is certainly not neutral or balanced and provided little support for its own claims.
Also, the second link, http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm, is broken and I cannot figure out the correct thing it should be linking to. Does anyone know where the original cited document was moved to?
Jeff Janes 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about organized opposition to fossil-fuel use. I dimly recall that even before 1989 (when the Global Warming theory first attracted worldwide attention) many activists were campaigning against fossil fuels. -- Uncle Ed 16:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone let this layman know how many pounds of biomass it takes to breakdown into a barrel of crude? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.230.176.185 ( talk) 05:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
There are quite a few places where this article mismatches data in other bits of Wikipedia e.g. reserves figures at Methane clathrate, non inclusion of other fossil fuel sources. Also it would help ref Global Warming if the total fuel figures were also given in gigatonnes of carbon, also the discussion of hubbert peak theory (which is strictly limited to one extraction technology) doesn't quite look right. I think the article would benefit from some updates/ cross comparison. I don't really want to jump into an article where I haven't been involved. Anyone interested in helping? -- BozMo talk 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The numbers in the introduction to the article regarding worldwide energy consumption (98% fossil fuel) say the remaining 14% (!) comes from other sources. The percentages should be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.196.242 ( talk) 17:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
AIE new estimates (dated 12/09/2007) gives
85.9 MDB for 2007
88 MDB for 2008
It would be good to have a graph representing consumption and estimated reserves, and eventually number of years of oil.
at the time i tried to add something about it the page was locked. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bloublou (
talk •
contribs)
08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 6.3 billion metric tons (= 6.3 gigatons) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount so there is a net increase of 3.2 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year.[4]
I think this is a bit misleading -- the total CO2 is around 25 gigatons/year while total C is around 7 or 8, so 6.3 looks plausible for Carbon, but way too low for carbon dioxide.
209.143.91.34 ( talk) 14:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please remove billion and use thousand million/giga instead. Similarly to imperial units, billion=10^12 for majority (non americans) 92.11.185.214 ( talk) 10:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please decide whether the term "ton" or "tonne" is to be used in this entry? It seems to be used interchangeably throughout, but 1 ton = 2240 lbs. while 1 tonne = 1000kg. Thank you. Wperdue ( talk) 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Neither the barrel figure nor the m3 can be used by ordinary (US) readers to get an idea of the amounts. It would be nice if s.o. could quote that in gal. THKS. 71.236.26.74 ( talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I recommend also adding scientific notation, eg "2.5 Billion (2.5 x 10 9th power) since Billion, Million, Quadrillion, etc still have more than one meaning world wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.228.157 ( talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please explain the difference between "atmospheric carbon dioxide" and "real carbon dioxide", and why there is a 44/12 conversion factor? Dbfirs 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC) My guess is that 44/12 is the conversion factor from "atmospheric carbon dioxide" to carbon. I've edited the article to reflect my guess, but could someone please check. I'm not an expert in this field. Dbfirs 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."' Sir Fred Hoyle, 1982. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.46.231 ( talk) 01:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this table as I don't see how it is at all relevant to the article. Feel free to add it back if you can explain how it is of use. Smartse ( talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The article states that:
"The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide)."
This may be accurate, but the chart which shows a dramatic increase in the emissions of carbon from the use of carbon-based fuels seems to show a different amount. The chart, titled : Global Carbon Fossil Emissions ends at yr 2004 with a total emission level of 8000 Million Metric Tons per year. Extrapolating on the steep curve does not look like it will reach a level 2.5 times the 2004 level by 2009. Also, if the 2004 level is only 8 billion tons per year amd natural processes can absord 10.65 billion tonnes per year, then why would the level of carbon in the atmosphere have been growing?
I have seen this chart elsewhere. If all of this is accurate, would someone please clarify. 71.241.228.157 ( talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem that I had was distinguishing between Carbon and CO2. I went back and compared the weights per mole of Carbon, Oxygen and CO2 and discovered the ratio and found that the numbers were consistent and THEN I saw the parenthetical explanation : "(one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide)". Because of the importance of this distinction I think it would be good to include a note next to or below the Carbon graph such as "Note: Carbon only represents 27% of the weight of CO2". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.228.157 ( talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a citation needed tag to the 4.1 billion barrels figure. So far I've only found a figure for the US reserves (~727 million barrels ( http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/ | DOE website)). Other countries have reserves, so if anyone has references please add them. JJJJS ( talk) 06:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph says this...... " amounting to an 86.4% share for fossil fuels in primary energy consumption in the world.[4] Non-fossil sources in 2006 included hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 8.5%, and others (geothermal, solar, tide, wind, wood, waste) amounting to 0.9 percent " Which adds up to more than 100 percent (102.1%). At least one of the numbers is wrong....someone should fix this error. I don't have the time or expertise to do more than point it out.... thank you in advance....
Also, it is probably wrong, since it does not contain any allowance for wood, which is the only cooking fuel used in at perhaps a third of households worldwide...probably only refers to commercial energy transactions, not total energy used.
Avram Primack ( talk) 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Coal ...
Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall by Alex Morales November 25, 2011; excerpt ...
Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis and an impasse at the United Nations global warming talks. Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.
99.190.86.93 ( talk) 04:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think this: "The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.[6]" needs to be removed - as shown in the diagram on carbon cycle total fossil fuel reserves (~4000Gt) are the equivalent of around 70 years of photosynthesis (60x70=4200). Can anyone suggest how the cited sentence could be correct? Smartse ( talk) 10:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following from the lede section, where it doesn't belong when there's not treatement of the material elsewhere in the article and it doesn't summarize what material is in the article:
Fossil fuels are
fuels formed by natural processes such as
anaerobic decomposition then geologic compression and heating of buried dead
organisms such as
cyanobacteria and plants who originally stored solar energy in chemical bonds through the process of
photosynthesis (leading some to term such fuels 'archived' photosynthesis).
[1]
This reference is a poor one for use here. What we need are references that give a general summary of the origin of fossil fuel, at least some with emphasis on the cycle of photosynthesis->plants growth->animal growth->plant and animal death->decay in conditions that produce fossil fuel. I'm not finding such sources quickly with simple searches. The material is easily available, it's just the choice of a sound reference that's eluding me at the moment. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
References
Considering that the OECD estimated $523 billion a year is spent on fossil fuels subsidies around the world, we should include this estimate, explain why it is subsidized and by which countries. - Shiftchange ( talk) 00:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I get a reference to the commonly held misconception that fossil fuels are derived from "dead dinosaurs"? I just added this to the page for petroleum: "It was once commonly thought that fossil fuels, like petroleum, were derived from so-called "dead dinosaurs". However, further scientific investigation has revealed that this cannot be the case, as fossil fuel formations have been dated to as many as 300 Ma, whereas the first dinosaurs did not appear for another 75 million years."
Source: Horn, Geoffrey M. (2010). Energy Today: Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. New York, New York: Infobase Publishing, Chelsea House Publishers. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-4381-3220-4.
Thanks in advance. 24.20.203.54 ( talk) 06:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Under the Reserves section, it talks about flows as production. I'm assuming (by the numbers they are talking about), it is talking about how fast the material is being mined from the reserves...?
I don't know if anyone knows a source, but I think an interesting addition to the article would be how fast fossil fuels are actually being generated (with the million year process, it has to be a very low number, but the earth is big and old, I imagine someone has to of figured out roughly how much, say coal, is produced by the earth every day). As mentioned in the intro, they are strictly speaking renewable, and it would be interesting to see the (how many..?) order of magnitude difference in production and consumption.
I didn't find anything in a quick search of online resources :(
(Also, I would say the word production is ambiguous. When I first read it i thought of the earth producing new fossil fuels, not humans mining. Maybe it should be clarified?) StarDolph ( talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt many industry sources would be talking both about generation and extraction, like this article does. I made a slight clarificaiton, changed "flows are production" to "flows are production of fossil fuels from these reserves"
Interestingly, when reading http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html , it sounds like fossil fuel deposits might of been more generally formed from major events (such as a lake or marsh drying up, or a mass extinction) instead of a steady process, which is what I would of expected. Still, it seems like someone must have done a study of generally how much material transitions from fossilized remains to say, oil over a time period.... StarDolph ( talk) 00:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is hopelessly imprecise. How old is the most recent organic source of fossil fuel? 2 million years old? Or 50 million years? Something between? Or more than 50 million? Koro Neil ( talk) 07:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In 2015 I made an attempt to compare fossil fuel consumption with a financial investment using "Uncle Helios" [1]
Environmental effects seem to focus on the consumption end, but almost every single day somewhere in the US (and elsewhere in the world) there occurs some disaster wherein a fuel-laden tanker truck or fuel-carrying train crashes and spills its toxic load, or explodes into a fireball on the highway, or where some fuel-carrying oceangoing vessel dumps or spills some of its contents, or where a fuel pipeline leaks or bursts, poisoning people's groundwater. The collective effect of these thousands of disasters must be felt over time, must it not? Pandeist ( talk) 04:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fossil fuel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name is George and not Georg. Typo Yajas Malhotra ( talk) 14:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://acaa.affiniscape.com/associations/8003/files/2004_CCP_Survey%289-9-05%29.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It is difficult to imagine how attributing a quote to a specific source can be so controversial. "Rodman also indicated the use of fossil fuels may seem beneficial to our lives, this act is playing a role on global warming and it is said to be dangerous for the future." Unless there are objections to this, I will reinstate this. Otherwise, it is written as an opinion. A Simple Name ( talk) 22:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fossil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth investigating whether EPA regulations have been changed since the (semi)recent change in administration in the US. JustJordan ( talk) 23:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The theory that fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over millions of years was first introduced by Georgius Agricola in 1556 and later by Mikhail Lomonosov in the 18th century.
Are there any alternate theories? 24.138.60.176 ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fossil fuel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2602:306:B87E:F640:5515:49DE:97AF:E382 ( talk) 00:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fossil fuel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to remove that "it takes millions of years to form fossil fuels" Barbecue it doesn't. And can't considering that the world is roughly 6000-8000 years that would be impossible. 2600:1005:B012:82E3:1105:223F:1E02:7B93 ( talk) 21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Numbers given under "Oil reserve" confirms the earth has 43 years of supply. Please say that outright. Or modify those numbers as you want. You can delete my comment after reading it. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.212.183 ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, In the past this article or one related included a pie chart showing proportions of fossil fuels used in various modes of transportation. Ie. proportions of gasoline, jet, marine bunker, road diesel, rail diesel and etc. consumed worldwide. Is such chart still available? I failed to find one in Commons. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It says, "The United States Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2007 the world's primary energy sources consisted of..."
-- 100.4.149.76 ( talk) 15:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I skimmed the article, and except for the idea that they come from fossils or organic life, I didn't quickly see the process of Origin and formation of these fuels. HOW did they get so far underground, for example? They are even under the oceans. What kind of massive event(s) at Earth caused certain of this? Misty MH ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Scientific reasons 'fossil fuels' can't possibly be from fossils or any organic materials. Organic material has Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon. 'Fossil fuels' do not have all three. It's a political term. So really your whole article needs editing.
Fossil Fuels" are not Fossil Fuels.
No such thing as fossil fuels?
Colonel L. Fletcher Proudly - Where the term 'fossil fuel' started — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejack007 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)