Fossil Fuel Energy: Uncovering the Power of Buried Organic Matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fuel
AI Thread Summary
Fossil fuels are derived from ancient organic matter that has been buried for millions of years, accumulating significant energy primarily in the form of chemical energy. The energy content of fossil fuels is much higher than that of living or recently deceased organic matter due to the long-term geological processes that convert accumulated thermal and gravitational energy into additional chemical energy. The discussion emphasizes that all energy obtained from fossil fuels is chemical energy, and the exact percentage of energy gained after burial compared to what was present before death remains uncertain and requires further clarification. Misunderstandings about energy calculations, particularly in relation to dietary and thermodynamic calories, are also noted. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of fossil fuel energy and the need for precise definitions and calculations.
pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
Fossil fuel is former live organic matter which has bee buried for hundreds of millions of years. They have lots of energy in them and we use it by burning them and converting some of those energy into useful work.

What energy is that?
Why does fossil fuel have so much more energy compared to living or recently dead organic matter?
What percentage of the energy of fossil fuel was already in them just before they died and what percentage did they gain after millions of years underground?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like homework. Smells like homework. Must be homework.

Give the first two questions a try; the third is poorly stated, and you'll want a little help with the restatement --- once you've got the other two.
 
Bystander said:
Looks like homework. Smells like homework. Must be homework.

Give the first two questions a try; the third is poorly stated, and you'll want a little help with the restatement --- once you've got the other two.


Actually it is not homework. It is something that came up during a discussion in the General physics forum under the topic of Hot Food... But I'll have a go at answering the first two questions.

1. All the energy we derive from fossil fuel by burning it was in the form of chemical energy.

2. Because it has been underground for hundreds of millions of years and static most of the time, it has accumulated massive amount of gravitational and thermal energy and has converted it into 'extra' chemical energy (on top of the chemical energy it had while it was alive through photosynthesis). It is this 'extra' chemical energy accumulated through millions of years that makes fossil fuel so energy rich.

3. The answer to this questions depends on the (correct) answers to 1 and 2. So I can't answer it. It may need to be restated as well.
 
Sorry --- haven't been following that thread.

pivoxa15 said:
Actually it is not homework. It is something that came up during a discussion in the General physics forum under the topic of Hot Food... But I'll have a go at answering the first two questions.

1. All the energy we derive from fossil fuel by burning it was in the form of chemical energy.
Correct --- underline, bold-face, and emphasize in every possible way the word "All."
2. Because it has been underground for hundreds of millions of years and static most of the time, it has accumulated massive amount of gravitational and thermal energy and has converted it into 'extra' chemical energy

Creative. Absolutely, utterly, totally wrong, but creative. Give you a couple hints here, and let you try again:

1) how much nutritional value in a glass of water? (You've already covered that in the other thread, but think about it.)
2) Ever use dehydrated soup? What's the label on the package say about nutrition? How does it compare to that for a "serving" of the same canned soup? How much nutritional value do you add to dehydrated by rehydrating it?​

(on top of the chemical energy it had while it was alive through photosynthesis). It is this 'extra' chemical energy accumulated through millions of years that makes fossil fuel so energy rich.

3. The answer to this questions depends on the (correct) answers to 1 and 2. So I can't answer it. It may need to be restated as well.

Gotta wait on 3. until we finish 2.

'Nother point for you, just to correct some miscalculations in the other thread --- a dietician's calorie (or "great calorie") is 1000 times larger than a thermodynamic calorie --- the thermal energy from heating food is 1000 times less relative to nutritional energy than everyone has been calculating in the "hot food" thread.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top