Fossil Fuels v Renewable Energy?

[rebewranger]

Fossil Fuels v Renewable Energy?

Let me start by stating that I am not pro or anti anything. In a free market, the best technologies, solutions and products automatically come to the fore, without the need for subsidies, regulations and mandates.

If renewable energy is all that is promised, it will do the same.


There is of course no doubt that the cheap, abundant and reliable energy provided by fossil fuels has transformed society and made all of us better off than ever before in so many ways.

We get rid of them at our peril!

So far, our transition to renewable energy in the UK has been painfully slow and extremely expensive. Wind and solar power still supply only 3% of the UK’s total energy consumption after two decades of trying. Meanwhile, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, subsidies for renewables were expected to cost £12 billion in 2021/22. This actually understates the reality because it does not include all of the indirect costs involved in grid balancing and so on, meaning the true cost is probably over £15 billion.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/03/31/fossil-fuels-v-renewable-energy/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

How do we know that fossil fuels are not renewable energy?

[Smokin Joe]

"fossil fuels" are not just an energy source, they are also the feedstock for modern living, from paved roads to plastics to clothing, to medicine and more.

This is some tunnel visioned short-sighted lunacy by people who just do not realize where the things in their world come from.

I am not against "renewables" where there is no alternative or they are the best alternative, but if they are being subsidized, partly by making other forms of energy artificially more expensive, that is lunacy. If they are being pushed as some "clean" alternative to "fossil fuels", then let's at least have an honest accounting of what it takes to produce those alternatives, through their whole life cycle, and weigh the energy consumed, emissions made, and mess left behind by decommissioning them. Then weigh that against an equally energy producing oil or Gas Field, a Coal Mine, and see what really comes out ahead.

I think that many of the religious devotees of wind and solar power would find they are not as "clean" as they seem to believe.

About the only form of power that seems to generally do well over the long haul is hydropower, with some local concerns for spawning fish, but generally free of emissions and waste once built.

Nuclear has its benefits in some respects, but there still isn't a way to dispose of the high level waste (or all those 'spent' fuel rods wouldn't be idling in pools on reactor sites). If not for treaties, those could be reprocessed to bring the concentration of fissionables back up to fuel status, but that requires a lot of electricity, too.

[Smokin Joe]

How do we know that fossil fuels are not renewable energy?

They are, it just takes a mite longer to get those surface sediments buried deep enough to reach thermal maturity. (in most places about 9,000 ft. or deeper for oil and gas, coal at shallower depths, depending on grade, peat at the surface.)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

They are, it just takes a mite longer to get those surface sediments buried deep enough to reach thermal maturity. (in most places about 9,000 ft. or deeper for oil and gas, coal at shallower depths, depending on grade, peat at the surface.)

I do understand the concept.  For all practical purposes, the earth's supply of hydrocarbons is almost limitless enough to last so many generations as to be renewable.

And we have barely scratched the surface of where hydrocarbons are located.

God suppled us for as long as we will ever need them.

[Smokin Joe]

I do understand the concept.  For all practical purposes, the earth's supply of hydrocarbons is almost limitless enough to last so many generations as to be renewable.

And we have barely scratched the surface of where hydrocarbons are located.

God suppled us for as long as we will ever need them.

Yes.

I have a book published in the 1940s about "When the Oil Runs Out", (early 'peak oil' fear porn).
I keep it in my office as a reminder that we have a lot left yet.

I also find it interesting that so many relative newcomers to thee industry seem to be having a problem in thinking that when the Bakken/Three Forks development is done, that will be 'it'. Hardly, considering the 13 other formations known to produce oil and two others deep enough that they just produce gas in the Williston Basin.

We have barely scratched the surface, and that's just one Basin.

I'm not against developing alternatives, and bringing them on line when available for those who find them to be appropriate for their transportation needs. But mandating not ready for prime time tech will only be damaging all around in the long run.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes.

I have a book published in the 1940s about "When the Oil Runs Out", (early 'peak oil' fear porn).
I keep it in my office as a reminder that we have a lot left yet.

I also find it interesting that so many relative newcomers to thee industry seem to be having a problem in thinking that when the Bakken/Three Forks development is done, that will be 'it'. Hardly, considering the 13 other formations known to produce oil and two others deep enough that they just produce gas in the Williston Basin.

We have barely scratched the surface, and that's just one Basin.

I'm not against developing alternatives, and bringing them on line when available for those who find them to be appropriate for their transportation needs. But mandating not ready for prime time tech will only be damaging all around in the long run.

Reminds me when I graduated almost 50 years ago as a petroleum engineer I was told that oil would be gone in 10 years and I would be out of a job.

I also recall a geophysicist asking me on the practicality of drilling and producing in 5,000 ft of water way back in 1977 when the US Atlantic seaboard was being explored.  He knew a giant structure was present that was undrilled that could contain 5 billion barrels of oil if filled to capacity.  At the time, the deepest production was in only about 1,000' of water.

That structure is still undrilled.

[Smokin Joe]

Reminds me when I graduated almost 50 years ago as a petroleum engineer I was told that oil would be gone in 10 years and I would be out of a job.

I also recall a geophysicist asking me on the practicality of drilling and producing in 5,000 ft of water way back in 1977 when the US Atlantic seaboard was being explored.  He knew a giant structure was present that was undrilled that could contain 5 billion barrels of oil if filled to capacity.  At the time, the deepest production was in only about 1,000' of water.

That structure is still undrilled.

That one (believed to be an impact crater) off Cape Charles comes to mind.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Chesapeake_Crater_boundaries_map.png