this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
1111 points (96.3% liked)

xkcd

11555 readers
27 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Alt text:

An idling gas engine may be annoyingly loud, but that's the price you pay for having WAY less torque available at a standstill.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No, it's renewable. But... not in any practical timeframe.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not the definition of renewable.

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really. Its trees from a time before micro organisms evolved the ability to eat dead trees. These days, the solar energy collected by trees will get used to power the metabolisms of fungi before those trees can get buried and eventually become new coal & petroleum.

I suppose an impact from a sufficiently large asteroid could turn the entire crust of the planet into magma, sterilizing it and therefore opening the possibility that new oil might be created some day.

[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

IIRC it is actually mostly from algea. A small amount from some fern-like plants. By the time trees existed, they were being broken down by bacteria.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

I think I read somewhere that oil will not be produced anymore because now bacteria can break down that biomass that it previously didn't. Hence, non-renewable even on long timescales.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Only if we bring back the dinosaurs. There are six movies (and counting!) explaining why this is not a good idea.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Technically no. Only if we erase bacteria capable of breaking down trees.