Are fossils really nonrenewable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WingZero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    fossils
AI Thread Summary
Fossil fuels are classified as non-renewable due to the significant disparity between their consumption and replenishment rates. While fossilization continues, the rate at which fossil fuels are consumed far exceeds the Earth's natural production, making them effectively non-renewable. Current estimates suggest there are about one trillion barrels of oil left, with a consumption rate of approximately 130,000 barrels per minute. Historical consumption patterns indicate that around 2 trillion barrels have been used to date, with the Earth producing oil at a rate of about 700 barrels annually. This means that sustainable usage would require consumption to remain below this production rate. The debate over remaining oil reserves is influenced by both scientific modeling and political factors, leading to varying estimates and trust issues regarding reported figures. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the long-term implications of fossil fuel consumption and the necessity for sustainable practices.
WingZero
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
are fossils really nonrenewable?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
If you mean "are the fossil fuels we use today essentially non-renewable" then the answer is yes.
The term "renewable" means the reasonable ability to be replenished.
For example, lumber, used both in construction and fuel source, is considered renewable given the relatively short amount of time needed to grow new trees.
 
And that "amount of time" is the key. A person would be quite right to point out that new fossil fuels are being made all the time. After all, the process of fossilization did not stop when petroleum drilling started. However, every time you drive your car for one hour, you burn up many years worth (poss. thousands of years worth?) of stored photosynthetic energy. So the ratio of [rate of comnsumtion] to [rate of replenishment] (rC=rRx) renders the resource "nonrenewable".
 
Questions about how much oil is left and how it should be used are a mix of politics and physics.

For example, our estimates of how much oil is left have been steadily increasing. Some say that's because we've developed better models for estimating the size of reserves; others accuse countries of inflating their numbers so that they'll be allowed to export more oil.

It also means that many of the numbers I googled for the purposes of this *rough* estimate are open for debate, opposition, refute. I don't trust anybody's numbers on this subject, not without a lot of study.

Anyway.

I averaged a few guesses to come up with one trillion barrels of oil left in the world. From another site, I found out we're using oil at a rate of 130,000 barrels per minute (yes, minute), and that this rate has been fairly constant for the past twenty years.

So let's say we our consumption rate was a quarter of what it is now for twenty years before that, and a twentieth of what it is now for forty years before that (for a very crude model of an exponential curve). That means we've burned 2 trillion barrels of oil so far.

So it took the Earth 4.5 billion years to make 3 trillion barrels of oil; that means that the Earth produces about 700 barrels of oil every year.

As long as we use less than 700 barrels of oil every year, we'll never run out of oil.

One barrel of oil can be refined to make 20 gallons of gasoline; one gallon of gas can be used to move a reasonably efficient car 40 miles on a flat surface.

So we won't use up the world's oil by driving our fuel-efficient cars 10,000 miles a year...

...as long as there are only 56 cars on the planet.

P
 
BTW, Lurch:

The amount of oil used in driving a car for one hour works out to be very close to the amount of oil produced in an hour by the earth. (My ballpark figures gave me one and half hours for the replinishing time.) But the cost of driving half a billion autos for an hour...

P
 
Hello, I’m currently writing a series of essays on Pangaea, continental drift, and Earth’s geological cycles. While working on my research, I’ve come across some inconsistencies in the existing theories — for example, why the main pressure seems to have been concentrated in the northern polar regions. So I’m curious: is there any data or evidence suggesting that an external cosmic body (an asteroid, comet, or another massive object) could have influenced Earth’s geology in the distant...
On August 10, 2025, there was a massive landslide on the eastern side of Tracy Arm fjord. Although some sources mention 1000 ft tsunami, that height represents the run-up on the sides of the fjord. Technically it was a seiche. Early View of Tracy Arm Landslide Features Tsunami-causing slide was largest in decade, earthquake center finds https://www.gi.alaska.edu/news/tsunami-causing-slide-was-largest-decade-earthquake-center-finds...
Back
Top