Eliminate fossil fuel?

Fossil fuels are non-renewable energy sources, like coal, oil, and natural gas, that formed from the buried remains of ancient plants and animals over millions of years. They are a major source of energy for electricity, transportation, and heating, but their combustion releases large amounts of greenhouse gases, contributing significantly to climate change.  

The detriments of supposed fossil fuels is drastically over inflated.

The left are fighting shadow agendas and trying to convince us they are real.

Logically speaking if there were millions of years of animals dying, the earth would have to be much thicker than it is. Cause every year there are 1.2 trillion animals killed... and thats mostly livestock.

People need to stop thinking we can somehow destroy the earth by burning a few things, its dumb.

What makes you think petroleum crude is non-renewable? Greenies do not get to redefine that term, just because they say so. Renewable means, by my OED, reproducible or renewable energy. Petrol will be reproducible for as long as living things live, die, and decompose. We suggest it takes millions of years to do so, but the fact is, there is no science to define the duration of decomposition to status as petro crude, and the Earth has been at it for many hundreds of millions of years; at least a billion. That greenies say fossil fuel is not renewable is a dumb as the woke think they are enlightened, when it is just a past-tense word for awake that really means one may again be asleep, based on the sense they make. 

Bravo. Both comments are not just sensible, but truth. Yes, fossils fuels are not clean, but stupidity is thinking we can cancel a 60-plus percent energy provider and replace it overnight with a source that is, at best, 20 - 30% of the energy grid, and not 24/7 available as it is. In fact, we have had "green" energy for over 100 years, and still not a majority supplier.

Yes, green energy can replace fossil fuels, with wind and solar displacing fossil generation and reducing emissions, but it faces challenges like intermittency (sun/wind not constant), requiring massive storage and grid upgrades, though experts like the IEA and UN see it as achievable with innovation, investment, and policy, potentially replacing most fossil use in power, transport, and heat by 2050. 

Green has managed, in 100 years [it has been around that long], without providing more than 20-odd percent of the energy grid in the U.S. What are they waiting for? AlGoreGooeyJuice? No one has bothered inventing that, yet, and is probably not even on the drawing board, mostly because of the invalid excuse that crude oil it is not renewable, but it is, and always has been. We keep finding new reserves because the Earth just keeps making the stuff. Always has, always will. Who shut-off the process? We've had use of petro crude for about 132 years when Edward Doheney started producing it in L.A., starting with where Dodger Stadium now stands. The L.A.basin is full of the stuff. Being a child of L.A., I know that history very well. All fossil fuels now comprise about 65% of the energy grid. So, why does green lag behind in production? No innovation? No will, or just admission that it is a failed enterprise, along with the previous two excuses. No A.I. was used in the production of this post.

Green energy has lagged behind fossil fuels 

due to a combination of entrenched infrastructure, higher initial investment costs, political inertia, and technical challenges like energy storage. However, recent data indicates a significant shift, with clean energy investment now outpacing fossil fuels. 

Key Reasons for the Lag

1. Established Infrastructure: The world's existing energy systems (power plants, transmission lines, vehicles, heating systems) were built over decades to run on fossil fuels. Retrofitting or entirely replacing this vast, global infrastructure is a massive and time-consuming undertaking.
2. Higher Upfront Costs: While the lifetime cost of renewable projects is often lower, the initial installation costs are generally higher than traditional fossil fuel plants. This high upfront capital requirement can be a significant barrier for investors and developing economies, who often face higher interest rates.
3. Energy Storage and Intermittency: Fossil fuels can be stored relatively easily and used to generate power on demand, providing consistent, "dispatchable" energy. Many primary renewable sources (solar and wind) are intermittent, producing energy only when the sun shines or wind blows. The technology for large-scale, cost-effective battery storage is advancing rapidly but has been a major hurdle to reliable, 24/7 green energy supply in the past.
4. Political and Regulatory Barriers: The fossil fuel industry has decades of established financial and policy mechanisms, including government guarantees and subsidies, that lower risk for lenders. Renewable energy projects often face regulatory inertia, lengthy permitting processes for new projects and transmission lines, and political opposition from vested interests in the fossil fuel sector.
5. Economies of Scale and Public Awareness: For much of history, fossil fuels have benefited from massive economies of scale and widespread public knowledge. A lack of awareness and a skills gap in green energy technologies have also contributed to the slower adoption rate in some regions. 

The Shifting Landscape

Despite these challenges, a significant shift is underway:

1. Investment Surge: In 2023, global clean energy investment was projected to be $1.7 trillion, nearly double the investment in fossil fuels.
2. Cost Competitiveness: Solar and wind power are now generally the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in many parts of the world.
3. Rapid Growth: Renewable energy has recently become the world's largest source of electricity generation, surpassing coal in the first half of 2025. China and India are leading the build-out of new clean energy capacity. 

The transition is accelerating, driven by economics, energy security goals, and climate concerns, but historical factors and persistent barriers mean fossil fuels still currently dominate the overall global energy mix. 

China's nuclear fusion reactor, known as the "artificial sun," has achieved significant milestones in the pursuit of fusion power generation. The Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) has maintained steady-state high-confinement plasma operation for a record 1,066 seconds, setting a new world record and marking a critical step toward a functional fusion reactor. This achievement is a testament to the collaborative efforts and relentless innovation in the field of fusion energy research. The EAST reactor's advancements in heating and control systems are crucial for sustaining high-temperature plasma, which is essential for the continuous power generation of future fusion plants.

Canada is a 

leader in nuclear technology and research, having developed its own domestic CANDU reactor system which is used internationally. While other countries like Russia and China currently lead in the construction and operation of some advanced (Generation IV) reactors, Canada is actively developing and deploying the next generation of reactors, including the first commercial Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in the G7. 

Canadian Nuclear Technology and Innovation 

1. CANDU Reactors: The Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor is Canada's major achievement in nuclear R&D. It is a pressurized heavy-water reactor design that uses natural (unenriched) uranium fuel and can be refueled while operating. This technology is a Canadian success story, with units currently operating in Canada, South Korea, China, Romania, and Argentina.
2. Monark Reactor: AtkinsRéalis, part of Canada's SNC-Lavalin Group, has developed the CANDU Monark, the most advanced version of the CANDU reactor with the highest power output of 1,000 MW. This Generation III+ design features enhanced safety and a 70-year operating life, and can integrate hydrogen production.
3. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Canada is at the forefront of SMR development, with a national action plan to deploy this technology. SMRs are smaller, modular, and have enhanced passive safety features, making them suitable for various applications, including powering remote communities and heavy industry.
4. Darlington SMR Project: Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is building the first commercial, grid-scale SMR in the G7, the GE Hitachi BWRX-300, at the Darlington site. Construction has begun, and the first unit is expected to be operational by the end of 2030.
5. Other SMR Projects: Other SMR designs are being pursued in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, including the ARC-100 and Xe-100 models, as part of a pan-Canadian effort to advance the technology. 

Canada's Global Position

While Russia and China currently have the most advanced operational Generation IV demonstration reactors, Canada's significant investment, strong domestic supply chain (including being the world's second-largest uranium producer), and robust regulatory framework position it as a potential global leader in the future deployment and export of advanced nuclear technologies. 

Your five AI excuses may hold some water, but the bucket does have badly leaking holes.

I wasn't around when petroleum became a viable energy source, but considering it exceeds the length of time it has been around compared to green, they are mostly that; excuses. When petroleum began to be a viable energy source [1890s], the infrastructure already had electrical power available in big cities for ten years, and the two grew in availability together. What's green's excuse? Well, one that isn't mentioned, because it tries to be a major selling point, is renewability. Being intermittent, it isn't that, at all, is it? It should be very naturally compatible with current infrastructure. But, currently, it's really not all that naturally renewable, is it?

Virtually every technology has high up-front costs; it certainly is not exclusive to green. Television, for example, and who does not have one, even if "poor?" Cell and smartphones, personal computing...

Energy storage is another misfit excuse. Maybe green should not have been politically selling the eradication of fossil fuel, as Biden promised, when green is no where near to replacing petroluem, and not maybe for another 50 years, minimum, according to its progress to date.

As I said, ya'll need AlGoreGooeyJuice, but that is as vacant an idea as a current typical Democrat head.

Political/Regulatory Barriers: oh, boo-hoo. If green was technically capable now, and truly competitive with petrol, there would be no political strife suffered by green, ergo, no regulation issues, either. Yes, you are fighting an image issue, but that's not petroleum's fault. See above relative to tech/know-how issues.

Economy-of-scale/public awareness: What scale and what awareness? Green lags petrol by a mere 30 years, and petrol really did not get its infusion of strength as a big-league energy source until after WWII in the late 1940s; almost 50 yeas after inception. Awareness is hurt by green's own salesmanship. It has been so badly sold, as a miracle energy, it's a total flop. Green is washed up. and may not survive it's own sales pitch.

Material evolution is, and the assumed necessity of, also is.

And planetary resources are finite, especially if more is taken than is given back.

Though the argument is as much about effects as it is about availability.

Nonetheless I see no current evidence to indicate that "fossil fuel" resources are sustainable as you seem to suggest.

And you should be clever enough to understand what is meant by "fossil fuels" and their formation.

So material evolution dictates and current human reliance upon Planet Earth also dictates...As does the availability of resources.

So current progressive thinking is what it is...And unfortunately Faux has stagnated in this respect.

None of which is to say that material development is not still reliant upon fossil fuel and it's derivatives, and that it won't be for the foreseeable future.

After beginning with two bold sentences in your #13, with such concern for resources, you immediately cave by your penchant for occupying and wasting empty space which is empty by wasted cyber space. Why must you separate sentences by usele3ss carriage returns? Kind of blows your whole argument, because that resource is, indeed, finite. Tell me, however, why organic resources are finite unless life ends on Earth. Thus the until-then infinity of organic resources, i.e., "fossil fuel." You've been sold, and you bought, a false assumption. Congrats. You're in a big crowd, which, in this instance, is not helpful. What's so organic [therefore of renewability] about windmills? Current progressive thinking is... what? So what, exactly, has faux stagnated, since my favored energy resource has been produced, and will be produced, if needed, for the entire future existence of man on Earth. I am not saying it is a necessary resource for infinity, but that all depends on our innovative continuation, doesn't it? In the meantime, you tell me how a 20% provider to the energy grid in all its forms replaces, today, a 65% provisional resource. Go.

Well, how I utilise available resources to present a clear argument, is completely irrelevant to the argument.

As is Faux's necessity for such personalised criticism...And what any of it has to do with finite fossil fuel reserves, I have no idea.

So, I have never said that "organic" resources are finite, but nonetheless organic resources rely upon a fragile ecosystem for sustenance, so in that respect they are undeniably finite...Hence current concerns about the effects of over reliance upon fossil fuels...Whereas "windmills" are a method of converting wind energy into electrical energy.

Now, I'm assuming that your "favoured energy source" is fossil fuels, though your argument wasn't particularly clear. So can you explain how fossil fuel reserves are being replenished. Go.

Though you maybe confusing carbon based renewables such as woodchip or bio-mass hydrocarbons with fossil fuels...Like I said your argument is not clear.

Nonetheless, the insatiable human demand for energy has to be continually satisfied, and how that will be achieved in the long term, will not be in the same manner that it was achieved over the previous 150 years or so.

Ultimately though, the ongoing provider of almost everything on Planet Earth is the Sun, (nucleosynthesis excepted) and learning how to utilise more than is wasted would perhaps be prudent, especially as more than enough direct energy is supplied to us by the Sun on a daily basis....And how prudent it is to utilise nuclear resources is another heated argument...Or should I say, heating argument.

You keep insisting fossil fuel is a finite resource. I've given you the science of why it is not, but is available for as long as life continues to exit on Earth. Got a reasonable explanation for your opinion other than that you embrace it? That's not good enough. As I said, you've purchased a myth. You claim fossil fuel's existence depends on a "fragile ecosystem for sustenance." That claim requires evidence. We have produced fossil fuels under every ecosystem in existence since the 1890s, and it continues production in spite of the variables. Got to have a better explanation. No, I'm not saying fossil fuels are our ideal energy source. I'm certain we can do better, but until we do, eliminating fossil fuel before we have a proven alternative to plug in at a minimum 65% capability of replacement, it's elimination is the destruction of any ecosystem anywhere, just like insisting on a vegan diet that cannot produce all the basic proteins needed for ideal human health only available from other animals [there are four proteins essential to us that veggie matter does not provide].

Yes, fossil fuels are a 

finite, non-renewable energy source. They were formed over millions of years from the buried organic remains of plants and animals under intense heat and pressure, a process that cannot be replicated within a human timeframe. 

Key points regarding their finite nature:

1. Formation vs. Consumption Rate: Fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) take millions of years to form, while humanity is consuming them at a significantly faster rate.
2. Limited Deposits: The known deposits and reserves in the Earth's crust are limited and scattered. While new technology can access more difficult reserves, it does not make the resource infinite or renewable.
3. Eventual Depletion: At current and growing rates of consumption, economically recoverable fossil fuels are projected to be severely depleted, with estimates for oil and natural gas supplies often in the range of a few decades.

You seemingly do not understand what is meant by the term "fossil fuels" Faux...Deposits of organics laid down billions of years ago and converted over those billions of years into oil gas and coal...These resources, which have been used in vast quantities over the past few hundred years, are never replaced and are therefore finite.

You're confusing it with organic renewables, which are replenished of comparatively very short periods of time.

Though as I stated, the bigger argument concerns the climatic effects of burning vast quantities of hydrocarbons over such a short period of time.

You have both apparently been taught that petroleum crude [that which is erroneously called “fossil fuel,” because it is composed of just about everything else than the “fossil” material of dead organisms, while all other organic soft tissue is decomposed over unknown years of natural processing to become petroleum crude. We don’t know how many years that process requires. It has never been measured. But what your eager greenie teachers have taught you is that the decomposition process of organic soft tissue to petroleum crude somehow stopped at the demise of dinosaurs. Why? No one will answer that question. Doesn’t mean there is no answer, but, in the meantime, why should it have stopped? Tell me another natural Earth process that has stopped. We do know the process endured for hundreds of millions of years. Maybe more than one billion years. How many years does it take to deplete that supply, even if [not a certainty, being an organic process] it is finite? We do not know. As I’ve said, it is a convenient claim that natural petroleum production was a finite process. Easy to claim, therefore, that green is urgently needed, isn’t it? Not proven, however, in spite of mere convenience.

So where are all the new deposits Faux...Simple question.

Any new deposits would obviously form above the fossil fuel deposits that we currently utilise.

In fact, if as you say this is an ongoing renewable process, then where is the surface evidence for this.

So where are all the new deposits Faux...Simple question.

When is the clock to match your "where?" Want to start with the 50's announce by geologist M. King Hubbard who said petroleum reserves would deplete in the 70s? Here's the EIA track of new discoveries just in the US. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RCRR08NUS_1&f=A

Worldwide? Look it up yourself. New knowledge is never bad.

Any new deposits would obviously form above the fossil fuel deposits that we currently utilise.

Why? Our techniques have improved significantly in discovery of deposits further below than once thought possible.

Many of our scientific discoveries are due to blasting original limited thought as obtuse. Hell, we once thought Earth centered the universe. Now, we don't identify either an edge nor center of the size of the universe. That's as dumb a claim as you claim my intelligence is. Why limit the range of oil deposits in area or depth? Or of knowledge capable of being learned?

In fact, if as you say this is an ongoing renewable process, then where is the surface evidence for this.

More limited thinking. The evidence of an ongoing petroleum-producing natural process does not occur merely on the surface of Earth, my friend, and never did, except in areas where the stuff is actually at the surface, such as La Brea in Los Angeles [not nearly the only deposit in the LA basin]. L.A. still produces millions of barrels per year from thousands of wells in spite of the LA City Council attempts to cancel it for reasons you want it cancelled; that it is aclaimed limited resource. Cancellation w2ould, indeed, limit its availability, but the not a scientific approach, is it?

None of that answers my questions concerning renewability.

Any new deposits found below existing ones or at similar levels, will obviously be more of the same, rather than new deposits.

Though as I continue to stress, the issue is not so much about the current availability and renewability of the stuff, but rather about what we do with it.

Nonetheless, a 100% dependency upon fossil fuels to satisfy our ever increasing demands would eventually become unsustainable at some point in the not so distant future...Which is why alternative solutions are being developed.

Hmmm, I don't understand why you find this so irksome.

In terms of human and material progress, the luddites achieved nothing other than a mention in history books, because change is seemingly inevitable.

Happy Winter festival Faux

Elon Musk’s arguments for colonizing Mars are primarily driven by the need to ensure the long-term survival of consciousness in case of a catastrophe on Earth, rather than directly by the immediate depletion of fossil fuels

. 

However, Musk has addressed the issue of fossil fuel depletion and its relationship to the future of humanity in the following ways:

1. Finite Energy Sources: Musk has stated that humanity will eventually run out of oil and gas, necessitating a move to a sustainable energy economy.
2. Economic Collapse Risk: He has warned that if the world runs out of oil before finding a sustainable solution for transport, the economy could collapse and society could come to an end.
3. "Life Insurance" Policy: Musk views Mars as "life insurance" for humanity. He argues that becoming a multi-planetary species is necessary because Earth is vulnerable to threats like nuclear war, pandemics, or, in the very distant future, the sun destroying all life.
4. Not a Replacement for Sustainability: Despite his focus on Mars, Musk has argued that Earth is "much better" than Mars, and humanity should work to preserve it while simultaneously building a backup on the Red Planet. 

His primary focus remains on reducing the cost of space travel via Starship to make life multi-planetary, which he considers essential for human survival, regardless of the energy situation on Earth. 

Any new deposits found below existing ones or at similar levels, will obviously be more of the same, rather than new deposits.

Seriously? You really believe that? Where did you acquire that gem? The Tooth Fairy? No, earth-bound materials, regardless of substance, do not occur in singular, large deposits. They exist in separate layers, isolated, and separately accessed. This is true of mineral deposits, including precious metals, water, and even petroleum crude.

And who said our dependence on petroleum crude should be 100% of our energy resources? I never did. Appears you just did. I've even acknowledged that green energy has its place, but not 100%, either. I have a 39-solar-panel array on my roof, for example, and have for nine years. Yeah; in a forest clearing that I did not clear, at 7500 feet elevation. Not one tree was lost in the construction of my mountain home. And my natural 3-season stream continues to flow through my property, most of it of benefit to those downstream of me.

Sergeant, you have me completely misunderstood.

Merry Christmas

He is a poor judge of people. You proved him wrong again.

There are two questions I've asked you to which you have not offered response. There are likely more two, but these two are really essential to your rebuttal, and you refuse to give service to them more than lip.

1 Why did the natural process of petroleum crude end, as you allege, and is, therefore, non-renewable?

2 Why is development of alternative sources of energy [including any of the "green energy" provisions] lagging behind its ability to increase production above 20% of the US energy grid, or 30% of the European energy grid to come close to being the equal of petroleum crude at 65% of the energy grid, when "green" has been around since only 30 years after petroleum production?

You have no argument if those two questions cannot be answered with more than accusation that I don't know what I'm talking out. Personal attack does not cut the cake, my friend..

Key reasons for the slower-than-expected adoption include:

1. Grid Infrastructure and Intermittency 

1. Aging Infrastructure: Existing power grids were designed for centralized fossil fuel plants, not for distributing power from dispersed, remote renewable sites. Many lines are past their 50-year life expectancy.
2. Intermittency (Variable Output): Solar and wind only generate power when the sun shines or the wind blows, requiring expensive, large-scale battery storage or backup from traditional fossil fuel plants.
3. Connection Bottlenecks: In the US, projects face up to five-year wait times to connect to the grid, while the UK has the longest queue in Europe, with ~100 GW of projects waiting. 

2. High Upfront Capital Costs and Economic Hurdles 

1. Upfront Costs: Although long-term operating costs are lower, the initial investment for renewable systems is high, often around $2,000 per kW for solar compared to $1,000 per kW for gas-fired plants.
2. Fossil Fuel Monopoly: The current energy market is heavily entrenched with fossil fuels, which have benefitted from decades of investment and infrastructure development.
3. High Interest Rates: Rising interest rates have increased the cost of capital, making large-scale renewable projects less economically attractive. 

3. Policy and Regulatory Bottlenecks

1. Permitting Delays: Lengthy, complex, and sometimes inconsistent permitting processes delay or block new projects.
2. Policy Instability: Inconsistent government incentives and lack of long-term targets deter private investment. 

4. Space and Supply Chain Constraints

1. Land Use: Solar and wind farms require 10 times more land than coal or natural gas plants to produce the same amount of energy.
2. Supply Chain Vulnerability: The production of solar panels and batteries relies heavily on specific materials (rare earth metals), with 79% of global polysilicon capacity concentrated in China, creating supply chain vulnerabilities. 

Contextual Note: While green energy is often viewed as only 30 years behind, the industrial-scaleapplication, cost-competitiveness, and infrastructure integration only began to surge in the last decade, particularly with the 2015 Paris Agreement. Currently, renewables are surpassing coal in some regions, but replacing petroleum's 65% share requires a total overhaul of the existing energy system. 

As I've tried to explain, fossil fuels are fossil fuels and are not renewable, whereas organic renewables are man made and used at source, rather than being laid down within the soil profile.

The clue is in the name "fossil"...And one isn't suggesting that there are not, as yet undiscovered fossil fuel deposits. Though they would have been laid down billions of years ago.

And as I also keep stating, the problem with fossil fuels isn't about their availability per se...But rather about the burning of them and their consequent effects upon the environment.

The demand and supply of energy is a separate issue altogether, and not an issue that can be readdressed overnight. So the world currently runs at a ratio of about 80/20, fossil fuels to other sources.

Yes, Faux and Elon need to have a chat.

What guarantee is there that Mars is fossil free?