Are alternative fuels pretty much done for?

[Elite Engineer]

With oil dropping to $30/barrel..and possibly dipping lower, is there pretty much no hope for alternative fuels? With gas being near $2.00 a gallon, I don't see any infrastructure being laid out for AF use/ research. I'm a big advocate for AF and this makes me sad. Thoughts?

 

 

~EE

Edited January 29, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[Endy0816]

I think biodiesel will stick around. Unless they find a way to reduce their costs or there is a sudden supply shortage of conventional options, will be difficult for more exotic options.

 

Ironic considering. Nice on the wallet but sucks for the planet.

[ajb]

With oil dropping to $30/barrel..and possibly dipping lower, is there pretty much no hope for alternative fuels?

Independent of the price, we do not have an unlimited supply of crude oil and natural gas... we will have to use other fuels at some point.

[Ophiolite]

Having survived multiple downdips in the oil price and hoping to cling on through this one, I can assure you with 100% confidence that barring bolide impact or divine intervention the oil price will soar again and encourage the search for alternatives.

[swansont]

There is still plenty of effort into solar photovoltaic and wind generating electricity, which is still an alternative to fossil fuels.

[Endy0816]

My thinking is that fracking has altered the equation. Operations will go in spurts but have plenty of locations worldwide to choose from.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Endy0816

[DrP]

And they will run out in the end and alternatives will be sought. This fracking may buy us more time to fix fusion power and improve solar.

[swansont]

To fix fusion it first has to work.

[DrP]

It does work, no? We have sorta broke even and we are improving all the time. The Russians are confident and ITER is under construction... Fusion 'works' - we need to better learn to control it, which is what we are working towards. Do you think we will fail in this endeavour?

[timo]

Two thoughts/comments (on the OP):

 

1) Costs of the raw material is not the only deciding factor. Almost everyone on the planet agrees that we have to cut down CO2 emissions. Legislation can drive the system towards a reduced use of non-renewable energy sources, say oil. A form currently employed is the sale of CO2 emission certificates. That means that to have the right to emit CO2 via burning fossil fuels you have to buy them. This is the system that is currently implemented in Europe. Doesn't work too well for reducing CO2 emissions because the market prices for emission certificates are much lower than what was originally expected. But it is a potential mechanism. Next, you could just directly impose a CO2 tax, which at the moment is often discussed in Germany. Lastly, legislation could simply forbid the use of fossil fuels for certain applications or at least partially do so (e.g. fuels sold in Germany have to have a certain share of bio-fuel mixed in). Personally, I would even go as far as to claim that the drop in fossil fuel prices is due to the Saudis knowing that no one will buy their oil in a few decades from now, so they put it on sale.

 

2) The expected path towards renewable energies is to make the electricity sector renewable first. This is already happening, with I think China and the US having been the countries that stocked up the most in renewable electricity generation last year. After that, the mobility and the heating sector are supposed to be included next. Partly by electrification (electric cars, electric heat pumps, possibly direct power-to-heat for high-temperature applications) and partly by synthetic fuels such as hydrogen, methane and liquid fuels generated from surplus renewable electricity. How this will look exactly in the future is a topic of current research. Currently, the research institutes researching on electric vehicles tend to see a future with more electricity in the mobility sector (because of the better efficiency) and research institutes researching on fuel-based mobility tend to see a future with more synthetic fuels (because they can be stored better). Also, for many countries (pretty much all European countries except Norway and maybe Switzerland) some kind of synthetic fuel will be required for the electricity sector once the renewable generation reaches around 80%.

 

As far as I see it there is a lot of research going on in synthetic fuels on different areas: efficient power-to-fuel technologies, future demand calculations, efficient engines, business models for synthetic fuels, ...

[MigL]

I'm not sure I understand the German logic of having a certain percentage of bio-fuel mixed in with gasoline, Timo.

It is still an organic and will release CO2 when burnt, so it does very little to curb CO2 emissions.

 

Modern gasoline engines actually burn very cleanly/efficiently. The fact that there are so many is a big issue which needs addressing with mass transit. Electric cars may seem like a solution, until you realize that in the US a large portion of electric power is STILL generated by burning coal, which is an order of magnitude dirtier and more inefficient.

 

Other than renewables like wind and solar, our best bets are Hydrogen ( although the emitted water vapor also has greenhouse properties ) and fusion ( yes, Swansont, it does work, as proof I offer the fact that today is a bright, sunny day ).

[John Cuthber]

For countries that import oil, there's still a lot to be said for alternative energy sources unless they want their standard of living to be at the whim of the exporters.

[Sensei]

Recent drop of price of oil is quite ridiculous.

Everybody wants to maintain their percentage of share of oil exporter, without any limits.

While high price of oil is favorable, because it means oil is economically utilized, with lost as less as possible.

While low price of oil means wasting is favorable/allowable.

 

It's ridiculous when price of making plastics from oil, is cheaper than making plastics from waste of plastics found on refuse dump..

[Moreno]

The widespred introduction of plug-in hybrides could reduce fuel consumption around 10 times. Regarding AF, consider natural gas/biomethane. The issue with these two is present state of technologies (storage).

Edited January 30, 2016 by Moreno

[Endy0816]

I'm not sure I understand the German logic of having a certain percentage of bio-fuel mixed in with gasoline, Timo.

It is still an organic and will release CO2 when burnt, so it does very little to curb CO2 emissions.

 

Modern gasoline engines actually burn very cleanly/efficiently. The fact that there are so many is a big issue which needs addressing with mass transit. Electric cars may seem like a solution, until you realize that in the US a large portion of electric power is STILL generated by burning coal, which is an order of magnitude dirtier and more inefficient.

 

Other than renewables like wind and solar, our best bets are Hydrogen ( although the emitted water vapor also has greenhouse properties ) and fusion ( yes, Swansont, it does work, as proof I offer the fact that today is a bright, sunny day ).

 

It make sense if you think in terms of the gasses released during standard decomposition.

 

If something is going to end up consuming oxygen or creating methane anyways, better to put it to work for you in the process. Granted I'm not so sure of the logic of using bits we can eat for this purpose. What we really need to focus on are utilizing the waste byproducts.

[Ken Fabian]

The enormous potential value of improved energy storage has become so clear it will ensure innovation gets supported. It impacts the takeup of renewables as well as electric vehicles and there is good cause to believe that significant improvements are in the pipeline. Advances in one will feed advances in the other - and right now they are on a roll and gathering momentum.

 

I think it's unrealistic to expect manufacture of renewables or EV's or other alernatives to be anything but a reflection of the energy mix of the day; the extent that transport becomes low emissions all the way down the chain will depend on how much of the energy mix is low emissions. How rapidly that kind of change can happen isn't clear however I suggest that when options like wind, solar, wave or tidal reach and pass competitive price points the rate of uptake can be expected to accelerate; extrapolation from historic trends, from prior to passing those price points, is going to be very misleading.

 

I don't think the price of oil is going to be a serious problem for the growth of electric vehicle use. Oil's price volatility is, by itself, a serious problem, no matter that it might be periodically cheaper. Are we, and most importantly the big investors and lenders, willing to bet on it staying cheap when we know it's capable of dramatic fluctuations? As better batteries make their way into new generations of vehicles the advantages are going to be hard to ignore; reliability, low maintenance and capability for taking advantage of low cost recharge options like oversized home PV systems or just plain old low cost off peak. In combination with smart home energy systems and management systems the storage in an EV can be utilised to maximum advantage.

 

Grand fixes like fusion just don't look realistic to me - if it's so hard to do that the combined best efforts of the world's most technologically advanced nations are struggling to make it work then it's likely it will continue to be very difficult and expensive for the foreseeable future. Large scale, all out fixes, even with tried and tested technologies - like fission - require the kind of strong bipartisan commitment that climate science denial and obstructionism undermines; being capable of incremental deployment in an uncertain and divided political climate is one of the strengths of renewables.

 

Unproven fusion looks unsuitable for rapid deployment in the remote parts of the world that are not technologically advanced; they need options that are usable now to avoid sinking big money into fossil fuel plant that locks in decades of future emissions growth and has high likelihood of becoming stranded assets. I think the kind of funding that fusion has got must make other energy R&D projects, many with much more widely applicable and achievable goals envious; I wouldn't like to see it abandoned but I would like to see energy storage R&D, for example, get similar levels of funding and support.

[Daecon]

The price of oil going down is all very well and good, but what are we going to do in a few hundred years or so*, when all the oil is used up? Or does nobody really care as we'll all have been dead for centuries by the time it becomes an issue...

 

(*I actually have no idea when Earth's oil will be used up, but it won't last forever.)

Edited January 30, 2016 by Daecon

[Ken Fabian]

Daecon, if "we" are still relying on fossil fuels for the larger part of our energy needs 100 years from now and are treating availability rather than advisability as the real limit, I think "we" - our descendants - will be in serious trouble. Being so cheap that it's preferred over, and limits the uptake of low emissions alternatives may well be the very opposite of "well" or "good.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[John Cuthber]

The widespred introduction of plug-in hybrides could reduce fuel consumption around 10 times. Regarding AF, consider natural gas/biomethane. The issue with these two is present state of technologies (storage).

Are you sure about that?

What about the fuel used at the power station?

If that was all solar or wave power you would have a better point but, for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel.

[Moreno]

Are you sure about that?

What about the fuel used at the power station?

If that was all solar or wave power you would have a better point but, for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel.

What about nuclear, hydro, geothermal? Especially overnight? Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand.

According to US energy information association, transportation consumed 29% of total US energy production in 2007. I do not know which units are used for stats, but EVs suppose to consume just 1/3 of gasoline/diesel cars energy? 29/3 = 9.7.

9.7% of total energy should be realistic load demand for carbon free electricity power?

Edited January 30, 2016 by Moreno

[John Cuthber]

What about nuclear, hydro, geothermal? Especially overnight? Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand.

According to US energy information association, transportation consumed 29% of total US energy consumption in 2007. I do not know which units are used for stats, but EVs suppose to consume just 1/3 of gasoline/diesel cars energy? 29/3 = 9.7.

9.7% of total energy should be realistic load demand for carbon free electricity power?

I presume the bit about Denmark is a typo; the figure is 40% not 140

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

 

At the moment fossil fuels generate about 70% of the US electrical power.

And what I said was "for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel."

Why are you arguing?

OK, so I should have put "etc" after solar power but...

My point remains; if you run cars on electricity derived from fossil fuels then the change from cars running directly on those fuels isn't great.

Edited January 30, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Moreno]

I presume the bit about Denmark is a typo; the figure is 40% not 140

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

 

At the moment fossil fuels generate about 70% of the US electrical power.

And what I said was "for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel."

Why are you arguing?

OK, so I should have put "etc" after solar power but...

My point remains; if you run cars on electricity derived from fossil fuels then the change from cars running directly on those fuels isn't great.

This citation was used by many sources:

"On unusually windy day Denmark generated 116% of its electricity needs by wind power alone, and at 3 AM when demand fell - 140%".

 

What happens to the energy produced overnight by the rest of non fossil fuel electric power? For example nuclear or hydro? France currently produces 80% of electricity on nuclear power plants. If US will build just a few more nuclear, hydro and wind power plants it would be sufficient to transfer most of transport to electricity.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Moreno

[John Cuthber]

You didn't cite anything.

 

There is a world of difference between what you first said " Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand." and what you actually meant

Denmark's power consumption once fell so low that it was producing 40% more wind-power than the electricity grid needed.

 

"If US will build just a few more nuclear, hydro and wind power plants it would be sufficient to transfer most of transport to electricity."

Until that happens hybrid cars don't help much.

Edited January 30, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Moreno]

You didn't cite anything.

 

There is a world of difference between what you first said " Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand." and what you actually meant

Denmark's power consumption once fell so low that it was producing 40% more wind-power than the electricity grid needed.

 

"If US will build just a few more nuclear, hydro and wind power plants it would be sufficient to transfer most of transport to electricity."

Until that happens hybrid cars don't help much.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=140%25+denmark&ie=&oe=

 

What do you think about "Thorium power" perspectives? Or Yellowstone caldera geothermal potential?

Edited January 30, 2016 by Moreno

[Endy0816]

I believe Yellowstone is protected by law.