From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What about oils like butter and lard? They're still oils (even if we insist on calling them "fats" just because they're solid). Researcher 01:22, 21 November 2008 (EST)

But a fat is not an oil. An oil is a long chain hydrocarbon. A fat is a trio of hydrocarbon chains joined by a fatty acid. Butter and lard are fats, not oils. Stile4aly 01:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Aren't they all lipids? Or no? Dang. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Oil the petroleum product, formed over millions of years is a pure hydrocarbon. Oil the food product has some oxygens in it. Oils are fats that have been broken apart with water and usually base. Oil the petroleum product is not a lipid. See WP's "fat" page. Sterilerationalize 13:57, 21 November 2008 (EST)

WP didn't help ;) : "Although the words "oils", "fats", and "lipids" are all used to refer to fats, "oils" is usually used to refer to fats that are liquids at normal room temperature, while "fats" is usually used to refer to fats that are solids at normal room temperature. "Lipids" is used to refer to both liquid and solid fats, along with other related substances. The word "oil" is used for any substance that does not mix with water and has a greasy feel, such as petroleum (or crude oil) and heating oil, regardless of its chemical structure."

Doesn't exactly simplify it. Seems like the "common words" are only differentiated by melting temperature - which is related to how hydrogenated they are, as I recall. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:45, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps I'll draw a Venn diagram. The common vernacular is a problem... Sterilerationalize 14:57, 23 November 2008 (EST)

A thought[edit]

Wouldn't the oil be replinished by dead organisms reaching the point that they become oil from the early Cenezoic? Talsley (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

GEOLOGY TIME! Not really. For deposited carbon organisms to become oil, a very very long time in specific conditions is needed. What is deposited now (dead plants, animals, that are fortunate enough to have the specific conditions needed to become oil, rather than rotting away, etc.) might become oil in millions of years... but there's not a gradiant of constant oil-making. The conditions come to exist and cease to exist all the time. So say if you have ten million years of good future-oil-deposit conditions, the surrounding area will change eventually such that things are no longer deposited in a way that would someday make oil. It's not as simple as 'things die all the time, oil is dead things, so oil is made all the time.' It's a series of very specific conditions. The same way that not everything becomes a mummy when it dies (needs specific conditions such as dehydration), deposited plants and animals will not always have the right conditions to eventually (millions of years under the right amount of pressure, etc.) become oil. For example, the areas where oil shale is formed were often shallow seas in the past, where dead sea life would settle to the bottom and then become covered by silt. A great example of this is the Marcellus Shale in New York state: there are layers of shale and sandstone. The shale layers that sometimes contain oil are from when the area was deep underwater as part of the sea, and the sandstone is when the sea actually retreated and the water became shallower: beaches and river run-off forms the sandstone. This happened many times over the course of millions of years: the conditions that could potentially enable oil came and actually went away more than once. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 15:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Short version: No. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This is why we need more clean coal plants as soon as possible until scientists finally find out a way to make solar power work. Very informative, I will ask around to confirm. Talsley (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with "clean coal", unfortunately, is that it is not completely clean. "Clean coal" merely reduces the carbon footprint of fossil fuels, rather than eliminating them. That's why right now, nuclear and wind energy are our best hopes, while research should be made into solar, geothermal, biofuels, and (using this term very carefully) cold fusion. Mr. Anon (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Organic and Natural![edit]

Anyone think it's ok for me to add a bit of humor pointing out that crude oil (and all fossil fuels) is natural and the very definition of organic, for whenever someone says something is "good" because it's "natural" and/or "organic"? No preservatives either. Gluten free. And we've been using it for millenia (pitch/tar for sealing ships), so appeal to tradition too.CorruptUser (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please. It's made from plants for crying out loud! Anyone who criticizes fossil fuels is clearly working for Big Atom. --Ymir (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
add pls 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Made the changes. Feel free to alter as necessary. CorruptUser (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)