Arfa Daily wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:24:09 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

The normal definition relates to fuels created out of organic
material, previously living material, laid down in geological times
since the planet was created.

Uranium and other minerals (e.g. other metals such as iron,
tungsten, etc) are what was left in the earth's crust after it
solidified. Not fossil at all.

Iron and tungsten are not used as fuels. Uranium is and it seems
sensible to me to consider it along with other fuels which are dug
out of the ground, no matter what definition some may use. I can see
why nuclear enthusiasts hate the comparison, but it is a valid one.



Sorry, but you simply can't bend definitions to suit your own
viewpoints.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fossil+fuel

Whilst uranium might be a mined commodity, it is not a fossil fuel,
not least because it doesn't generate carbon compounds when used for
electricity generation ...

Whislt I agree with you Arfa about CF bulbs (I dislike them too), the term
"fossil" is used sometimes to decribe a non-renewable resource. Take fossil
water for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_water

This is water extracted from aquifers that is not renewed (or at least not
renewed in any sort of useful timescale).

Tim