Fossil Fuels

[ls99]

An article in Reuters talks of energy use by German automakers and renewables. Mentions use of Fossil Fuels.
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...ers-face-uphill-struggle-go-green-2022-04-29/

The question not answered is: Is there any energy in fossils which have been converted to stuff commonly referred to as fuel.
As far as I understand fossils are essentially inert materials.
Which begs the question; where does the stuff referred to as fossil fuel comes from?
Hope some petrochem experts can shed light.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

IIRC, the etymology of the word "fossil" was from fossa, meaning "depression," "hole," or "cave." When petrified remains of animals were first found, they were found in caves or holes dug, and so they were described as "fossil specimens," where here "fossil" was an adjective that meant "found in a cave."

Eventually, the word "fossil" became a noun used to refer to the remains themselves. Eventually, it became an adjective again to describe the origin of, say, coal: the coal was composed of the remains of long-dead living things, so we call it a "fossil fuel."

Because of this, the word's meaning has begun to shift again, to mean something like "of limited supply." I have seen references to "fossil water," to refer to the water in an aquifer that is not being replinished. At first, this term sounds very odd, becuase the water is not from previously living things, but I suppose it could be termed "fossil" in the sense that it comes from a hole in the ground!

 

[mountainsoft]

I am far from an expert, but as I understand it "fossil" fuels are the result of past plants and animals that died, decayed, and over thousands of years of heat and pressure the carbon turns into coal, oil, natural gas, etc. Likewise decaying vegetation, thawing permafrost, etc. can give off methane (a component of natural gas).

Nothing leaves the earth. Yesterdays living things become today's fossil fuels, today's living things will become tomorrows fossil fuels. It's a closed system. The problem is we are consuming the stored fuels faster than they are created, dumping more carbon into the environment than nature can deal with.

 

[ls99]

Intersting histories of the term.
But is there evidence that for example crude oil is some converted dead thing?
Or fossil fuel is newspeak?

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

Intersting histories of the term.
But is there evidence that for example crude oil is some converted dead thing?
Or fossil fuel is newspeak?

Almost everyone believes that oil comes from the remains of prehistoric plankton and algae: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/

I think it should be noted that the direct evidence for this is thin. There are some people who believe oil came from non-biogenic sources. (https://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html) This is usually met with great skepticism. However, it may not be crazy if you consider that other planets are known to contain methane, for example. However, that is for the gassy planets, not the other rocky ones (Mercury, Venus, Mars) that we are aware of.

 

[Bullwinkle]

I'm not an expert so expert correction welcomed, but the popular conception is that coal seams date from the carboniferous period, which is when plants evolved hard stuff (lignin?) and it took a very long time for fungus and bacteria to figure out how to break it down. So it just added up and got buried. Even today, wood doesn't decompose easily, which is why it's a better building material than broccoli and banana peels. But the fossil stuff didn't decay, that's the important part. The stuff that did decay went back into the air.

All plant matter is effectively trapped sunlight, plants pull carbon out of the air and use sun energy to build organic molecules that store energy. That's why plants consume carbon and emit oxygen. Since they have energy, it can be released by burning it, and of course why it releases the carbon. That's what fire is, and is kind of the definition of "burn." So even without knowing the whole history and chemistry, you can already tell it's organic and not inert, because it burns. If it didn't, it would just be black rock, good for walls but not for an industrial revolution. The only non-organic thing that "burns" which I can think of is nuclear, and that's because some star exploded and some of the energy got stored at the atomic level. A different kind of sunlight and a different kind of burning.

I guess sulfur burns... chemists will probably say there are many non-organic things that can burn, but I think they're rare at least because where did that energy come from? Maybe life is the only thing that really actively collects and stores energy.

Oil and natural gas are different than coal of course, but I think it's the same story, organic remains that got buried instead of decaying. So, they were created at a particular time in the distant past which only happened once, and accumulated over millions of years, also representing all those years of sunlight. Since people are into saving around here, think of it as inheriting a million year savings account. It has no interest though, energy doesn't come out of nowhere.

 

[ls99]

Regarding wood. In my early years in the Aleutians, while doing tide gauge work, we in the crew discovered an acre or more petrified forest knocked over in relatively shallow water on the Bering side of the islands.
Some were branches, many trunks about a foot in diameter. We visited that site for many years, simply to marvel at the stuff.

Would be kind of hard to burn rocks as that forest has become. I suppose forests getting petrified is a unique process. Unfortunately never got to discuss the stuff with learned folks at the tree ring laboratory of Lamont.

 

[Bullwinkle]

I vaguely remember something where actual fossil-fossils are formed via a chemical exchange. Since it's a replacement, the original organic stuff really is gone, and so they really do get turned into inert stone that won't burn better than your average rock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifaction seems to back that up more or less.

All this stuff is complicated though and I guess there are many exceptions for everything. I hadn't heard about the non-biological theories for oil!

I've heard about the various underwater petrified forests along the PNW, caused by earthquakes or whatnot. I haven't seen any in person though they sound like quite a sight!

 

[Alan]

I've heard about the various underwater petrified forests along the PNW, caused by earthquakes or whatnot. I haven't seen any in person though they sound like quite a sight!

We live a few miles from the coast in NE England and in 2018 there was a big winter storm that exposed a petrified forest close to the shore at low tide. We went out for a walk about on it. It really was quite impressive.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/h...me-uncovered-6-000-year-old-petrified-forest/

THE Beast from the East has caused the sands of time to shift on Redcar beach and create an unusual tourist attraction.

Hundreds of people visited the seaside to see the 6,000-year-old petrified forest and peatbed that have been revealed by the storm which has sucked out millions of tons of sand.

In truth, the trees are on show fairly frequently – the last time was 2013 – although this appears to be the most complete revelation for many decades. This time, even a shipwreck has been unsanded, although there have yet to be any human remains unearthed as happened on previous occasions.

 

[DrRoy]

As I understand it "fossil" fuels are the result of past plants and animals that died, decayed, and over thousands of years of heat and pressure the carbon turns into coal, oil, natural gas, etc. Likewise decaying vegetation, thawing permafrost, etc. can give off methane (a component of natural gas).

This is correct. Fossils that one sees in a museum, like of bones or shells, are created when the bone/shell material is replaced by minerals over time. "Fossil fuels" are not fossils in that sense, but both originate from ancient life.

 

[Winemaker]

When I w*rked in a coal mine in WY in the late '70's, I was amazed at the things I saw underground. It was sub-bituminous coal, and did not liberate methane like most coal mines. The seam was 18-20 thick, and once in a while, one could pry out a tree limb, or trunk that had absorbed pyrites. Some were a few feet long, and some were almost 20 long. Some of these "trees" were drug outside and put in the office lawn. I also, saw and collected a few oval shaped "palm tree" leaves or fronds. These were a few inches in diameter, looked like large grass bunches with bands around them. If I can find them out in the garage, I try to post a pic or two.

When I spent time in WV, these mines were very gassy; methane would hiss, bubble, and freely liberate. While I cannot say that the methane that was liberated was trapped in the coal seam; courts have ruled that there is coalbed methane, but I have seen volumes of methane liberated into the coal seam from the rock floor and/or roof. In some mines, I have seen small pools of thick crude oil on the mine floor seeping from the coal seam, floor, and roof. These were bituminous coal mines,and I never saw a fossil. However, I did see some metallic objects in the coal, some the size of basketballs or bigger. These were harder/heavier than anything I ever seen and they caused a lot of damage to machines. We shipped a few outside to get checked out but never heard the final results. I suspected them to be meteor fragments that landed in the swamp eons ago.


At some of PA mines I w*rked at, in the same Pittsburgh seam as the WV mines above, at one place in the roof there were thousands of fern leaves that left an impression in the roof, but left no mark or trace on the coal next to it. Pretty weird. Also, we had a several places were the crude oil was much lighter and volatile. When we mined through these areas, we had to mine slow, increase our ventilation to the face, and spray fire retardant foam on the cutting heads, so we wouldn't blow ourselves up.

At one mine, we mined under a huge sandstone formation that the natural gas company had pumped natural gas into to use as a storage facility for their pipeline.

Pretty neat stuff over the years.

 

[Zathras]

Fossil fuels have been studied to death and are well understood.
As others have stated, fossil fuels are converted plant (and some animal) remains.
Plants tend to, under the correct environment, turn into Peat. Given enough time, and adding pressure and heat, this then can become coal.

If you would like to google “how are fossil fuels formed” you will get tons of details about how they form and how we know what we know about them.

 

[Turbo29]

The only non-organic thing that "burns" which I can think of is nuclear, and that's because some star exploded and some of the energy got stored at the atomic level. A different kind of sunlight and a different kind of burning.

When an atom of uranium splits, the products of the split actually have less mass in total than the uranium atom did. The missing mass is accounted for in the energy released according to the famous E=mc^2.

I guess sulfur burns... chemists will probably say there are many non-organic things that can burn, but I think they're rare at least because where did that energy come from?

A molecule of sulfur dioxide (burnt sulfur) has an lower energy level than sulfur and oxygen separately. That difference in energy is what is released with sulfur is oxidized (burnt). The rusting of iron is actually a very slow burn.

 

[Sunset]

Great stories from people about natural wonders, all from the definition question.

I've been to the Petrified Forest National Park, which is amazing to see, and accessible.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

When an atom of uranium splits, the products of the split actually have less mass in total than the uranium atom did. The missing mass is accounted for in the energy released according to the famous E=mc^2.


A molecule of sulfur dioxide (burnt sulfur) has an lower energy level than sulfur and oxygen separately. That difference in energy is what is released with sulfur is oxidized (burnt). The rusting of iron is actually a very slow burn.

All true. Interesting unsaid fact: the E-mc^2 relationship holds for the second case, too. We don't tend to think of it this way, but mass is NOT striclty conserved in a chemical reaction; the sulfur dioxide molecules weigh (very slightly) less than the S + O2 that went into the reaction. The missing mass goes into the energy liberated in burning.

We tend to make a distinction between nuclear and chemical reactions, because the fractional change in mass is noticeable in the nuclear case, and tiny in the chemical case. But the physics is the same.

 

[Turbo29]

All true. Interesting unsaid fact: the E-mc^2 relationship holds for the second case, too. We don't tend to think of it this way, but mass is NOT striclty conserved in a chemical reaction; the sulfur dioxide molecules weigh (very slightly) less than the S + O2 that went into the reaction. The missing mass goes into the energy liberated in burning.

We tend to make a distinction between nuclear and chemical reactions, because the fractional change in mass is noticeable in the nuclear case, and tiny in the chemical case. But the physics is the same.

Yes, and your cellphone has slightly less mass when the battery is discharged than when it is charged.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

Yes, and your cellphone has slightly less mass when the battery is discharged than when it is charged.

Truth!

 

[Koolau]

Fossil fuels have been studied to death and are well understood.
As others have stated, fossil fuels are converted plant (and some animal) remains.
Plants tend to, under the correct environment, turn into Peat. Given enough time, and adding pressure and heat, this then can become coal.

If you would like to google “how are fossil fuels formed” you will get tons of details about how they form and how we know what we know about them.

Yeah, here is the treatise by Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

This is substantially what I learned over the years. Big thing is that the formation needs to be anoxic (in the absence of oxygen) else the carbon is eventually turned to CO2 rather than hydrocarbons. Not sure if it's mentioned, but some large "pools" of FFs are thought to have formed in catastrophe. IOW, huge beds of organic materials (like jungles) may be buried due to dramatic flooding or burial by volcanic or earthquake activity. In such anoxic conditions huge (or small, I suppose) amounts of Carbon are rendered into FFs.

Absolutely not an expert so take with many grains of salt as YMMV.

 

[ls99]

Oil and gas are organic and contain no fossils.

Great bunch of info so far.

I found the:"Oil and gas are organic and contain no fossils." statement in https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does-not-come-dinosaurs

The last paragraph in the following quote says fossil fuel is a misnomer.
And the last line of the last pragraph in the quote says fossils have nothing to do with energy.

"As for coal, Strauss notes that the world’s coal deposits “were laid down during the Carboniferous period, about 300 million years ago—which was still a good 75 million or so years before the evolution of the first dinosaurs.” Coal was formed when the dense forests and jungles were “buried beneath layers of sediment, and their unique fibrous chemical structure caused them to be ‘cooked’ into solid coal rather than liquid oil,” explains Strauss.
So, scientifically, when we talk about plastics being made from “biomass” as a means of becoming “green,” we’re not really talking about anything new. Petroleum is made from aquatic phytoplankton and zooplankton, and because petroleum is created by biomass, plastic is a form of biomass. It makes sense, then, that we can create plastic from corn, sugar cane, switch-grass and other plants. Plastics are plants in another form.
The term “fossil fuel” is really a misnomer that caught on and is still being used. For example, I received a notice for the Global Plastics Summit (June 4 to 6 in Houston, TX) sponsored by IHS Markit and the Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS). One of the featured speakers is Steve Winberg, Assistant Secretary, Fossil Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy. The title of his presentation is, Fossil Energy Innovation and Opportunities. Winberg might be surprised that fossils have nothing to do with energy!"

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

Great bunch of info so far.

I found the:"Oil and gas are organic and contain no fossils." statement in https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does-not-come-dinosaurs

The last paragraph in the following quote says fossil fuel is a misnomer.
And the last line of the last pragraph in the quote says fossils have nothing to do with energy.

"As for coal, Strauss notes that the world’s coal deposits “were laid down during the Carboniferous period, about 300 million years ago—which was still a good 75 million or so years before the evolution of the first dinosaurs.” Coal was formed when the dense forests and jungles were “buried beneath layers of sediment, and their unique fibrous chemical structure caused them to be ‘cooked’ into solid coal rather than liquid oil,” explains Strauss.
So, scientifically, when we talk about plastics being made from “biomass” as a means of becoming “green,” we’re not really talking about anything new. Petroleum is made from aquatic phytoplankton and zooplankton, and because petroleum is created by biomass, plastic is a form of biomass. It makes sense, then, that we can create plastic from corn, sugar cane, switch-grass and other plants. Plastics are plants in another form.
The term “fossil fuel” is really a misnomer that caught on and is still being used. For example, I received a notice for the Global Plastics Summit (June 4 to 6 in Houston, TX) sponsored by IHS Markit and the Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS). One of the featured speakers is Steve Winberg, Assistant Secretary, Fossil Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy. The title of his presentation is, Fossil Energy Innovation and Opportunities. Winberg might be surprised that fossils have nothing to do with energy!"

Your self-serving shill at Plastics Today has a narrow definition of "fossil."

 

[marko]

Maybe I'm out in the weeds here but I thought everyone knew what I was taught in grade school 60 years ago: Petroleum comes from decayed plants and animals that lived millions of years ago and formed deposits.

Methane (gas) still oozes from the bottom of swamps and underground. Very little pressure on the deposits and you get gas. A little more pressure you get an oily, sticky petroleum, even more pressure and you get coal (which sometimes has impressions of ferns or other plants).

The Permian Basin et.al. were once seas where for millions of years, plants, plankton, animals, slowly deposited and built up.

Our oil/gas/petroleum and "oil feedstock" (to make plastics) today was once living matter and where the 'carbon' (CO2 byproduct) comes from. Fossil? Ok, fossil not in the sense of rock impressions but in the sense of a once living thing more or less still laying there in a different form.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the old Sinclair oil company used a dinosaur for their logo?

Last year, I made the above claims and about 20 of us started a discussion. I was amazed that nobody in the group knew, or even believed this. So much so that I began to doubt my grade school teacher!

 

[Winemaker]

Your grade school teacher was right, marko. For every foot of coal seam, there was approximately 8 feet of plant material, and coal seams are pretty vast, once being a lake or sea bed. These coal seams were formed horizontally and flat due to gravity pulling the dead plant material to the bottom. For the most part, the seams are still flat, but the overlying surface has changed. For example, the Pittsburgh coal seam extends from Pittsburgh, where it outcrops along the Monongahela river and extends down to Clarksburg WV and is about 90 miles wide. The hilly SW PA and northern WV surface has been carved and washed away over the past 300+million years. The surface we walk on today, has not been the same surface formed over those 300 million years. I live on a hill, and the Pgh seam is about 600' below my house, the folks in the valley behind me, the Pgh seam is about 475' below them. All told there is about 80 different coal seams beneath my feet, some are not mineable. The surface that I walk on in my property is ~60 million years old, meaning that the rock, earth, dirt that was here above me 59+ million years ago, has all been washed away or pushed somewhere down stream, perhaps sitting in Alabama or Loiuisiana now.

 

[Murf2]

This thread is pretty interesting, so I think I’ll ask my stupid question.

How did all this stuff “get buried”? Where did all the material that covers it come from?

Yes, I’m serious. I just don’t get it.

Murf

 

[folivier]

Back when I was working for a drilling fluids company when drilling an exploratory well there was always someone who was analyzing the drill cuttings. They were looking for diatoms and other small organisms usually. That indicated they were getting close to an oil/gas producing formation.

 

[Koolau]

So, scientifically, when we talk about plastics being made from “biomass” as a means of becoming “green,” we’re not really talking about anything new. Petroleum is made from aquatic phytoplankton and zooplankton, and because petroleum is created by biomass, plastic is a form of biomass. It makes sense, then, that we can create plastic from corn, sugar cane, switch-grass and other plants. Plastics are plants in another form.

I think one of the major issues with starting to make almost anything from biomass is it is (so far) much less efficient than starting with (forgive the expression) "fossil fuels." Sort of like making liquid fuels from biomass is very doable but costs more energy than it gives (classic example is ethanol which arguably takes more energy than it provides upon burning in an ICE.)

I'm neither for nor against research along these lines, but it would seem there is a steep hill to climb anytime we convert biomass into things we've been producing with FFs for 100 years. First is the learning curve and second is the inherent difference in the inherent energy of the source. FFs are just about as dense an energy source as exists (other than nuclear fuels.) Biomass is very low energy and requires a lot of energy input to convert it into useful products. My SWAG: the most productive use of biomass to avoid the use of FFs is directly as a heating fuel (firewood comes to mind.) Big problem is, there isn't enough biomass produced (especially in the form of firewood) to make a large dent in domestic or industrial heating. That doesn't even address the issues of inconvenience of huge amounts of biomass to replace relatively small amounts of (easily transported) FFs.

Let us hope that biomass (and other technologies) can replace much of our FF usage. However, I'm not optimistic though I have no training or degree that would validate my pessimism. Heh, heh, for years, I did use biomass (fire wood) to heat my house (at least while I was there to safely do so.) YMMV