|'Fossil' Fuels...26-02-2019 00:14|
|After reading here, about how we don't burn fossils, and carbon fuels don't come from plants and animals, and being a little confused, but letting it slide.|
Fossil, refers to something very old, ancient. Doesn't specifically mean the skeletal remains trapped in stone. Just means it's incredibly old. Fossil remains aren't even made of organic matter, just the shape remains, and replaced by minerals, over a long period of time.
Crude oil is made up of thousands of compounds, many of which, are pretty close to organic compounds, which strongly supports that it came from organic matter.
We've been able to make synthetic petroleum products since the 50s, several different processes these days. Doesn't mean that these are the same processes used in nature. Mimicking the natural process would take to long, to be of any practical us. Coal and methane are used in these synthetic processes, a little of a let down, both are fuels. Was expecting they were creating fuels, out of none burning ingredients. Still good, useful stuff, as they can have far less poisons and impurities, than the natural stuff, pumped out of the ground.
|Into the Night★★★★★
A fossil is the shape of an animal or plant in stone, or the void left by such an image.
HarveyH55 wrote:Just hydrocarbons of various lengths.
HarveyH55 wrote:A hydrocarbon IS an organic compound. That does not mean it comes from biological sources. An organic compound is any carbon atom covalently bonded to another atom, typically hydrogen, or oxygen. Thus, carbon dioxide is an organic gas. The term 'organic' does not mean biological in origin.
HarveyH55 wrote:Of course it did. It's carbon bonded to something else. Not a biological source.
HarveyH55 wrote:The 40's, actually.
HarveyH55 wrote:Only one. The Fischer-Tropsche process, invented by the Germans during WW2.
HarveyH55 wrote:The conditions for the Fischer-Tropsche process naturally occur underground.
HarveyH55 wrote:We can do it in literally an hour or two. The reason it isn't practical as a source of fuel is that it requires more energy to put into the process than you get by burning the oil you get. Earth does it naturally, so all we have to do is extract the stuff from underground.
HarveyH55 wrote:That is not oil synthesis. That is conversion, an entirely different chemistry. Also rather useless.
HarveyH55 wrote:Which is why it is useless.
HarveyH55 wrote:The Fischer-Tropsche process does just exactly that (if you don't count the hydrogen).
HarveyH55 wrote:It is? Where?
HarveyH55 wrote:Hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons. They are the same no matter whether they are filtered by length or not.
HarveyH55 wrote:Hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons. There are no 'impuritities' in hydrocarbons.
The stuff we pump out of the ground is hydrocarbons.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
|Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..||392||01-12-2023 21:58|
|ELECTRIC VEHICLES, THE GASOLINE PROBLEM, AND SYNTHETIC FUELS||13||19-10-2021 23:54|
|Fossil fuels||149||19-04-2021 01:39|
|fossil fuel||13||13-01-2021 09:35|
|fossil fuel||44||30-12-2020 05:34|