what new technologies have made fossil fuels more valuable over time?
925702
Fossil Fuels have been more valuable because of the war at Middle East which is centered at Iraq which holds a lot of oil (which is a main fossil fuel) at Middle East. Government have made solar panels, hydroelectricity dams, and wind turbines to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels have a negative impact on the environment because it causes global warming.
881341
energy become stored in a fossil fuel because it became petrified in the fossil.\nfossil fuels contain chemical energy.
105991
I believe in the long run it will be cheaper than fossil fuel based applications. Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive to build and control and the deposit of waste costs a lot. But in the long term, i think the costs saved from cleaning up pollution caused by fossil fuels, and costs saved from the transportation of fuels (uranium generates way more energy than an equal amount of oil or coal) will be more beneficial than using fossil fuels.
970513
We can replace a lot of fossil fuels with methane energy. There's a town in the US which is almost totally run on methane gas from an intensive feedlot. If there was a will to do it there would be methane digesters and collectors on all sewerage systems and intensive farming installations.
3611
The easiest thing would be to switch all cars to hybrid.  Right now.  The technology is here.  Wind power now costs less than coal, but our government keeps giving money to the coal industry because of lobbyists.
616877
All engines have a cost.  I suggest that the cost of this form of energy may be the slowing of the rotational period of the Earth.  What would we pay in time
1112176
Not if someone or some country can find a source of energy other than fossil fuels. A source so vast that it cannot be depleted. The history of the world is dominated by search for energy. Pretty soon China or India will come up with an alternate fuel that won't require the burning of fossil fuel. With that event will come the end of corporations that are built around the fossil fuel business. And that will bring about the end of capitalism. It is all about energy and the manipulation of energy.
788942
Your question leads us to try and come up with what creates energy and that is not going to happen.\nI suppose you are asking what conversion processes exist and which is best for your needs or the needs of the general population.\nThe energy in fossil fuels is converted to heat and the most popular source is coal because it is least expensive.  That heat energy from coal is then converted to electricity at most power plants.\nThe energy in petroleum is converted to kinetic energy in your car's engine.  Since we buy millions of barrels per day, one can assume it is the most popular.\nThe energy coming from atomic fusion is the greatest energy used on the planet.  We get it from the sun.  We can capture that energy and convert it to electricity too.  Not only is it our planet's greatest source of heat, but also is the greatest source of light.  Given the number of people sunbathing at the pool, one can assume it is the most popular, too.  Atomic energy can also be pulled from uranium and turned into electricity or used to destroy entire towns.  One is popular, the other is not.\nPlease add some more info to your question.  It is too vague for me to answer well.  Just as minootoo points out, the pros and cons of ALL sources of energy is beyond the scope of this forum.
927848
Gas futures rose as a result of the Democrats taking office, knowing full well that they do not comprehend the importance of this resource!\n\nThanks so much for asking! I'm glad I could clear that up for you!
377913
Consider hydrogen as more of a battery than a fuel source.  Just like all batteries, it takes more energy to produce and charge it than you can get out of it later.  The same is true for coal and oil, except the energy was input millions of years ago, so it's virtually free today...\n\nCurrently some of the cheapest methods of producing hydrogen actually require the use of fossil fuels.  Since the whole point (for many) is to reduce fossil fuel usage, this isn't a very viable option except for helping to cheaply transition to hydrogen.\n\nYou could use a renewable energy source like wind turbines to produce the electricity for electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen/oxygen), but again there is a lot of waste.  It's far more efficient to just hook the wind turbines to the power grid.  Even that is more expensive than fossil fuels for the time being.\n\nHydrogen fuel cells do seem like a very good idea for vehicles.  It would result in electric cars that can be filled up anywhere without charging for hours between trips.\n\nSo all in all, hydrogen has potential but it is not a solution.  Some other extremely cheap source of energy has to be developed before hydrogen can fill any real-world needs.\n\nEDIT:\n\nI also want to address a couple things in the other answers:\n\n1. Storage of hydrogen has basically been solved.  You don't just compress the gas and put it in a tank.  Instead, it can be chemically bound with lithium nitride, which will store more hydrogen per unit volume than even pure compressed gas.  It is a very weak bond, so it doesn't take much to re-extract the hydrogen.  Undoubtedly there are even better storage mediums to be discovered.\n\n2. Boiling water doesn't produce hydrogen.\n\n3. There is no risk of accidentally creating a hydrogen bomb.  And they have nothing to do with splitting a hydrogen atom.  Hydrogen bombs fuse two or more hydrogen atoms together, which requires temperatures of millions of degrees.  Figure out how to do it at cooler temperatures and win a Nobel Prize. :)
113098
Fossil Fuels are all (in chemical terminology) hydrocarbons.  One example is of a hydrocarbon is propane, C3H8.  When a hydrocarbon reacts (combusts) with the air it ALWAYS produces Water and Carbon Dioxide.  C3H8 + O2 ---> 3*CO2 + 4*H2O
298246
There are only two. One is that oil is a very concentrated form of energy. Having cars run on gas is far more feasible than powering them by, say, burning wood. You just don't get enough of a return on the use of that type of energy. Second is that it is relatively easy to access, at least thus far. One of the things that will happen as oil becomes more scarce is that we will have to try to drill for oil that is in much less accessible places, such as the north sea, or in much deeper deposits. There used to be a third advantage - that it seemed plentiful, if not inexhaustible. This advantage has been proven to be a myth.
310390
It is too bad that they have not been developed to their capacity. It is a concept whose time has come. Nuclear energy should be another alternative to fossil fuels, however too many crazies block that. But we need to cut our independence to oil so that the oil company's do no have such a death grip on us.
307093
probably the most important will be a commercialized alternative to petroleum.
182000
Well, currently all technologies have their drawback.  I'll go into detail what's up and why:\n\nNuclear fission - older LWR (light water reactors) are inefficient.  They use less and produce more waste as compared to the newer models using heavy water and sodium cooled reactors.  New generations of nuclear fuel are providing greater efficiencies.  I believe the best would had been the Integral Fast Reactor.  This would had provided proliferation resistant means of producing power.  Waste would had been sorted out with their pyroprocessing methods, and stuff that would be buried would have a half life of no more than 100 years.  It could use up LWR waste and other wastes from lesser efficient breeder reactors to produce power indefinitely.  It could convert at most 20% of waste back to fuel, and reuse.  But with the whole process, the waste leaving would be completely free of actinides and other long lasting radioactive materials.  So, nuclear fission would had been my favorite, if there wasn't such a public outcry for the source.  Until public opinion changes, there will not be any new sources in the US for a while.  Additionally, cost overruns of power plant production (because of a lot of safety mechanisms needed) would deter a lot of investors.\n\nNatural Gas - you know gas.  It's gaining a foothold in the US.  Technologies are becoming more efficient and cleaner.\n\nNuclear Fusion - Something for the future, but until it's a proven technology, we can't live off of pipe dreams.\n\nCoal - ah, coal.  It is the current favorite source of power in the US.  There are more advanced power plants called coal gasification power plants which uses scrubbers and other means of cleaning up the air.  This is slated to be replaced by natural gas by DOE's estimates.\n\nWind, Geothermal, and other sources - \nWind requires expensive equipment that could alter the landscape.  Again, go check on the DOE's website, but they require many windmills to achieve what one powerplant can.  Geothermal requires hot sources in the earth.  Yosemite could be one, if it wasn't preserved.  Look at iceland for that. Solar is expensive and dependant of climate conditions.  It is better in the desert, but in cities with varying climates, we are dependant on a consistant power source.  Tidal sources of energy could be feasible if it didn't alter marine life ecosystems.  Currently it's a newer source of energy.  Scientists haven't perfected the technology to provide a competative means of power source.\n\nMy conclusion:\nYes I think coal should be continue to be used for the moment.  Currently, we cannot just change from one source to another because of current technologies and public perception.  There is a great market for this source of power - it won't dissapear in an instant until there are rivalling technologies that could provide comparable rates.  In the end, $$ are the deciding factor between the feasability of one source versus another.
970194
It is a non-renewable fossil fuel.  Oil and natural gas are also fossil fuels.
181911
"Fossil fuel" doesn't mean it comes from fossils. It is the product of decayed bio-matter, which is most likely dead foliage that built up in layers, and after a great deal of time, was converted to oil by the intense pressure. This can happen with iorganis material as well, provided there is a proper carbon/hydrogen proximity. The big deal is, it takes a long, long time to make.