Talk:Fossil fuel

Environmental effects opening paragraph
I don't think the opening to the Environmental effects section needs to include the bit about the "huge improvements". The section is about the environmental effects and the "Importance" section already covers that earlier. In bold is line I suggest should be removed:


 * The use of fossil fuels was central to the Industrial Revolution. Over the past few centuries,[specify] fossil fuels have helped deliver huge improvements to the standard of living across the planet. Nevertheless, the burning of fossil fuels has a number of negative externalities – harmful environmental impacts where the effects extend beyond the people using the fuel. The actual effects depend on the fuel in question. All fossil fuels release CO2 when they burn, thus accelerating climate change. Burning coal, and to a lesser extent oil and its derivatives, contribute to atmospheric particulate matter, smog and acid rain. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Done - feel free to edit more yourself Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Should there be multiple images in the lead?
I think yes to include at least one pic of each of the 3 main fossil fuels. Your thoughts?

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. It's a good idea to add a picture of oil and gas to the coal one. I include two possible candidates --Ita140188 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggested improvement
Remove the word 'underground' from the definition, not all fossil fuels are formed underground, peat is one such example 31.200.145.28 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this article about climate change?
There is very little useful information in this article about fossil fuels, apart from the statement that their use constitutes 84% of primary energy production in the world. What is the relative importance or the different types of fuels and their market value? Is more energy produced from natural gas than from coal? About 70% of the current article is actually about Environmental issues with fossil fuels. It would be better if this content was split off to a separate article. ("Environmental issues" is currently a redirect to the lower 2/3 of this article.)

As to the issue of climate change, I would like to know how much CO2 is released for a megawatt of electricity by different fossil fuels, coal, petroleum, natural gas, LNG. Please improve this article by collecting this information and adding it here.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to expand the article, or request a specific edit be made. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

TLE
Effects of innovative and creative accessories on marketability of product 136.158.65.89 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

fossil fuels
Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, coal products, natural gas, derived gas, crude oil, petroleum products and non-renewable wastes. These fuels originate from plants and animals that existed in the geological 41.114.215.247 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Fossil Fuel is an ambiguous term used to group together geologic hydrocarbons under the premise that all had origins in primordial life. Obviously, in the case of coal, this is true. It is not so clear with other hydrocarbons. As Saturn's moon, Titan, has the largest known lakes in the solar system, and consist primarily of methane with ethane also present, the biologic origin of natural gas is problematic. As you add more methyl groups and progress to longer chain hydrocarbons, how can you say these are only biologic products? Cracking towers take petroleum and break the chains into lighter, more desirable components. Does that process only go one way? Did some living thing synthesize hexadecane? If you accept that geologic processes can link longer chain hydrocarbons together into heavier and more complex molecules from ethane to asphalt, and given that methane does not always have a biologic origin, the term 'Fossil' in Fossil Fuel is dubious at best. 2600:100B:B1C2:759D:0:E:B258:C801 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources saying exactly that if you want to add it to the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying exactly what? Kraken Mare says it is the largest hydrocarbon lake on Titan. Petroleum is a soup of various length hydrocarbon chains consisting primarily of CH3 methyl groups. Methane is CH4, Ethane is C2H6, Propane is C3H8...Heptane, Octane, Nonane, (gasoline) are C7H16, C8H18, C9H20 respectively. What I've stated here is straight deduction, no opinion. I could edit and cite any garden variety college chemistry text but Wikipedia already has everything I've said any way. 2600:100B:B1C2:759D:0:E:B258:C801 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: How about I edit this and question the veracity of the term "Fossil" where I use the double bracket Wikipedia redirections for every noun in the paragraph? Would that be "reliable" enough? 2600:100B:B1C2:759D:0:E:B258:C801 (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Saying exactly what?" Saying exactly what you want to add, whatever it is.
 * "What I've stated here is straight deduction" Deduction is forbidden here. See WP:OR.
 * "question the veracity" You need to have a good reason to question it. Calling fossil fuels fossil fuels is scientific consensus. If you want to change the consensus, Wikipedia is the wrong place to start. Go publish your thoughts in scientific journals. If they reject your ideas, your ideas are not good enough for Wikipedia either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "...natural gas, formed naturally in the Earth's crust from the remains of prehistoric organisms..." ??? This, in the same data base with the Lakes of Titan that are literally seas of natural gas? There are a few people out there such as Lifei Zhang of Peking University whose "current research focuses on abiotic generation of hydrocarbons in subduction zones" and books such as Deep Carbon that are beginning to look at geologic chemistry, particularly deep organic chemistry, but to think that there is any deep scholarly pool of knowledge is premature. I don't care about consensus but that first paragraph just looks absurd in light of extraterrestrial hydrocarbon evidence. Don't you think it would be wise to be a bit more circumspect about embracing a terminology so loaded with contradiction? 2600:100B:B1C2:759D:0:E:B258:C801 (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No. You will not succeed in your attempts at WP:FALSEBALANCE. You are in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024
Fossil fuels do not come from decayed plants and animals. That's why hydrocarbons are found and many places throughout the solar system where life is never believed to have exist. Hydrocarbons form naturally inside of the Earth and as they expand further towards the crust they are then absorbed by by microbial life and various algies and used for energy.

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/10823/are-fossil-fuels-really-formed-from-fossils 47.38.218.105 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see our policy page on reliable sources, which this is not Cannolis (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)