I doubt this:
"The auncient Philosophers affirme, that there haue bene founde fishes vnder the earth, who (for that cause) they called Focilles [French focilles]."
- E. Fenton, translation of P. Boaistuau, Certaine secrete wonders of nature, containing a descriptio[n] of sundry strange things • (translated by Edward Fenton) · 1st edition, 1569, https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=fossil&tl=true, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/fossil_n?tab=meaning_and_use#...
"From French fossile, from Latin fossilis (“something which has been dug up”), from fodio (“I dig up”)."
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40664837>
Enough bullshit flinging already, eh?
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fossil%20fuel&...>
Zooming in on the 19th century, the term was already seeing use in the 1770s/80s, and was rising in usage well before 1860, by which time it had reached a peak.
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fossil+fuel&ye...>
The Standard Oil Company was founded in 1882. Its predecessor Standard Oil Company of Ohio was founded in 1870.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil>
I call bullshit on EricE's unfounded claims.
1610s, "any thing dug up;" 1650s (adj.) "obtained by digging" (of coal, salt, etc.), from French fossile (16c.), from Latin fossilis "dug up," from fossus, past participle of fodere "to dig," from PIE root bhedh- "to dig, pierce."*
Restricted noun sense of "geological remains of a plant or animal" is from 1736 (the adjective in the sense "pertaining to fossils" is from 1660s); slang meaning "old person" first recorded 1859. Fossil fuel (1833) preserves the earlier, broader sense.
<https://www.etymonline.com/word/fossil>
I'll note that the 1833 date for "fossil fuel" predates establishment of Standard Oil or its predecessors by four decades.
Ah. And where do "cartels" fit into that structure?
Texas became the 8th larger economy thanks to the increasing oil production (larger than Russia or Canada). But Texas should invest that money (like Norway or UAE does) as it won't last for ever. When oil is gone (or too expensive to extract) people will leave Texas, and Texas will be a wasteland with orphan wells everywhere polluting underground water.
In general, it would be wise for US to get an exit plan, for when oil would not be so easy to extract (yes it is more difficult now, but the oil price is still high enough). Oil price can be counter intuitive as it is the main fuel of the world economy. So, if the production declines, the price can go up, but not too much. At some point, economies would shutdown, and the demand would fall sharply. Only the countries that would be out of oil (i.e. using electricity from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) would continue to be humming. The other countries would enter in chaos, unrest and war. Which would generate economical migrations and more chaos.
Again countries should plan for peak fossil fuel, and even if they are lucky to have some oil underground, they should plan to massively transform their economy to electricity and transition the production from fossil to more sustainable production like nuclear, solar, wind and hydro.
That would be great, but I think we're just going to enjoy the ride while it lasts. Some states are going to aggressively invest in solutions, others will deny any problem exists and then ask for handouts when things go sideways, the government is going to flip flop every one or two terms. Honestly that's one of the better realistic scenarios that we could hope for.
The time horizon for those issues is not compatible with electoral terms. There is no incentive for any politician to tackle such big issue. Even though it might become existential. We would deal with the externalities until we get swallowed as it becomes unavoidable. The more we wait and the more painful it would be.
That’s what they do. Always.
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry totaled 37.15 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2022. Emissions are projected to have risen 1.1 percent in 2023 to reach a record high of 37.55 GtCO₂.
Instead of pushing upwards to break the 40 Gigatonne per annum ceiling maybe work to reduce consumption patterns, efficiencies, question whether high cost of energy environments are the ideal locations for populations to expand into, etc.
The fact that US (Texas in particular) is producing more now, does not mean that the resource is unlimited. Like mentioned before we produce more, but it is more difficult and expensive to produce oil (and not count the ecological impact of fracking).
The only thing that we produce more than ever, means that we are accelerating as we are seeing the wall coming. We are addict to fossil fuel and it is a hell of drug. It is free, we just have to drill. It is energy dense. But like a drug, the more we use it and the less easy it is to use something else.
We need to withdraw, and wean off. The more we wait and the faster the withdrawal would have to be. US needs to build new (extend the old) nuclear reactors, modernize the grid as electricity will power the country more and more, from transportation, heating/cooling, industry, etc.
FWiW I've spent decades in mineral and energy resource exploration and modelling and would likely be regarded by many as "part of the problem".
I'm left with a keen sense of increasing effort for decreasing supply and a strong sense a large part of the problem lies with demand and expectations.
If CO2 wasn't building up so fast, the situation would almost be easy.
Where on Earth did you ever hear such a thing?
Update / edit:
Apparently this is a fake meme floating around Facebook and elsewhere, dating back at least three years:
(Factcheck, 2022): "Facebook posts falsely claim US oil magnate coined term ‘fossil fuels’ to introduce ‘idea of scarcity’, boosting oil prices"
<https://factcheck.afp.com/facebook-posts-falsely-claim-us-oi...>
(Reuters, 2021): "The term ‘fossil fuel’ was not coined by John D. Rockefeller to trick people into thinking oil is a scarce commodity"
<https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2QQ1UK/> Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/st4q6>
And another debunk from Politifact in 2022: <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/08/facebook-p...>
I'd strongly encourage folks to improve their media literacy.
For example, Brazil has a huge production of combustible-grade ethanol which, although subsidised by the government, helps stabilize fuel prices for everyone in the country. When oil prices go up, ethanol production goes up which smooths price fluctuation.
In raw numbers the subsidies probably costs more for the economy than just importing oil when considering the years of cheap oil. But if you take into account all the business that don't collapse and go bankrupt because of that the math doesn't look so clear-cut. That on top of economy diversification.
This is just the economic argument of one alternative energy source in one country. The national security, geopolitical and environmental impacts are even harder to quantify but are extremely important as well.
For example, every country probably benefits a lot from having the ability of deploying more nuclear power plants, so it might be worth building a limited number of them just to keep the industry alive (especially if the industry is local to your country). That is even if you, as a country, decides against nuclear long term.
I think O&G have large constituent voting bases from entire states. Let alone lobbying. Once Solar / Wind employ 1000s of highly concentrated workers for entire lifetimes, you'll see the political winds shift - pun intended.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63709352
You can see rapid progression to zero of Russian imports for natural gas in Germany if you scroll down to the info graphic in this article
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependen...
Germany is also famously anti nuclear
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Gasversorgung/aktuelle_g...
When all you have to explain the world is a hammer every problem will look like a nail. It's a form of cognitive bias.
Furthermore, America has been invested in the defense of Taiwan for far longer than the chips have been involved. America needs to remain committed to Taiwan if it wants other countries, particularly Japan and South Korea, to take America's support seriously. Reputation, not resources.
It's probably an exaggeration though
Russia annexed Crimea and we did nothing. Russia invaded Ukraine and besides sending billions in aid, we haven't done anything militarily. The attacks against Israel went unprovoked and we've got all we can handle with the anti-Israeli protests going on here on our own soil - let alone trying to send troops to any of these hotspots. China has been sabre rattling about taking over Taiwan and all we can manage at this point are sternly worded memos. Add in the amount of conflict going on in Africa that nobody seems to want to deal with either. All the while China has steadily moved economically in on Africa and has essentially pushed us out of the country altogether.
What you're saying in 2024? I don't see the US has the capabilities to do that any more.
That said, "Any more"?
Russia is much less of a threat to you now than the USSR was between invading Poland and the fall of the Soviet Union and end of the Warsaw Pact. China and the USSR are why the US didn't win in Vietnam or North Korea, and you've had all those decades of fun with Cuba (including that time Castro offered to send some election monitors to help the US).
In general, the US does well as a team player, but isn't so good when it tries to be a loner. Looking over the Wikipedia list, of the wars you've won without allies, have been against very small, weak, opponents:
• United States invasion of Panama, 1989–1990 (but only if you don't count the Panamanian Opposition as an ally)
• The Tanker War is listed, but the full page for that war says the US was supporting Iraq at the time
• 1986 bombing of Libya
• 1923 Posey War, the main page for which… well, 2 casualties in total, so if that's a war then what are school shootings? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posey_War
• United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–1924)
There were plenty of solitary successes before that, but even the end of that last one was a century ago now. The successes, like WW2, the USA was one country amongst many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
> Russia invaded Ukraine and besides sending billions in aid, we haven't done anything militarily.
An analyst I follow says this is deliberate, based on the US worldview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZ402BMSs8
> The attacks against Israel went unprovoked and we've got all we can handle with the anti-Israeli protests going on here on our own soil - let alone trying to send troops to any of these hotspots.
Israel and the various Palestinian armed groups have been provoking each other for as long as I've been reading news. This doesn't justify any given example of bad judgement on either side, but they've definitely been provoking each other. And you're really not got all you can handle for the anti-Israeli protests, protests are a police action at most, not military.
I can't see the US forces being able to do much to help in the current Israel-Palestine mess, though, no matter what next step you think is the most important for peace in that area — given the politics, the only lever the US can pull on at this point is how many weapons they're willing to sell to Israel… and Israel has a huge weapons industry, about 10% of the global export market.
> China has been sabre rattling about taking over Taiwan and all we can manage at this point are sternly worded memos.
Yes, but that's also basically what's been going on since the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949, which resulted in the retreat of the Republic of China government to… Taiwan (fun fact: guess which of the two Chinas had a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council from 1949–1971).
With risks of much larger conflict with China become more serious, I really hope that americans reconsider their priorities and invest in military production before it's too late.
Indicators of that include bringing T-55 tanks to the battlefield, which require four, instead of the usual three, crew members to operate, which is troublesome.
They produce artillery rounds at a rate of 250k per month, but fired approximately 10mln during the first two years of the war.
The Black Sea Fleet is unlikely to recover anytime soon - if ever.
The list goes on. What good is production capacity ig it's wasted like that?
Nukes are intended to keep peace, as in "mutual assured destruction". And they still work in this capacity :-/
Can you say more? This is probably the first time I hear that nuclear energy is not financially viable.
Long story short, because of the reduced complexity in powerplants using fossil fuels, they are inherently cheaper per kilowatt. And therefore the more complex nuclear power plant costs more to setup and takes longer... Thus increasing the overhead and therefore rate at which one must charge for the power to be economical
The rules that require perfection are not there because of actual risk. We're past the point where things are already so safe, and releasing so much less radiation than coal plants, that getting stricter just makes the world worse.
Case in point - UK's latest nuclear power plant has been delayed and costs literally billions of pounds more than planned because hairline fractures were discovered in the reactor containment vessel. That sounds bad, right? Anyone who hears "nuclear containment vessel" and "fracture" immediately goes into panic mode and hence why the amount of money being spent on fixing this issue is literally unlimited and the entire project will be massively over budget in every possible way.
But......other nuclear reactors in britain(and in fact across the world) operate with the same fractures in their vessels and it's not considered a reason to shut them down. It's an inevitability of the manufacturing process, the vessel is still strong enough to withstand any kind of situation it could conceivably end up in, so it's literally nothing. But because it "sounds" bad the British public are spending billions to improve something that doesn't need improving, because like you said "Nuclear requires perfection". And I don't disagree with you in principle, but I think we have to acknowledge that perfection has a number of degrees to it.
This should be viewed as "corrupted regulators" rather than "magically strong materials".
In 1986, the Challenger blew up. We learned that although originally good safety standards had existed, over time a series of small exceptions had been made, each one on the theory that "hey it never blew up yet, a small change won't matter".
Reactor licensing works like that. Sure, the reactor vessel is cracking which was never expected to happen. Sure, the graphite bricks are cracking which was never expected to happen. The important thing is, it never blew up yet, and that means it's perfectly safe to ignore the problems.
At some future point there will be a Problem and it will be dutifully explained that a series of small deviations from safe practices became normalized, blah-blah, and everyone will nod and take the lesson to heart, until it happens the next time.
Or you know, the fact that some of these reactors have been operating for close to 50 years and are fine is proof that it is actually indeed fine.
I don't know - would love to hear an expert argue either way.
If you answer "zero chance" for all of those answers, you're being unreasonable, and choices like that increase the radiation you'll be exposed to.
The thing is......the "core" of national energy grid shouldn't operate in the "for profit" model. Any wealthy country should have enough nuclear power stations to be completely independent of any external energy source, even if they lose money operating them. It's a matter of national security, not free market. That's just my 2 cents though.
we still have to police the red sea despite producing enough oil for ourselves
There is no silver bullet for being able to power a country with 340+ million people - some of who live in very inhospitable climates (Arizona/Alaska) where one solution will work for everything and everybody.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but every time something like this happens, we focus on all the negatives instead of understanding the alternatives aren't that great either.