Are alternative fuels pretty much done for?

[Moreno]

I believe Yellowstone is protected by law.

Should it be restricted from geothermal power plants construction? If yes, why?

[Endy0816]

Yes, as there are alternates that wouldn't destroy a unique ecosystem.

[EdEarl]

The low price of fossil fuels has not dampened demand for renewable energy generation according to Bloomberg. Around the world renewable energy projects are being constructed at a record pace. Although the US federal and state governments have been crippled by climate deniers, most cities have elected officials; many of them are installing renewable power generation facilities and retiring power plants that spew CO2. In addition, CEOs are installing renewable power systems to run factories, office buildings, warehouses, outlets, etc. As financing and building these renewable power plants occurs, research and development are expected to reduce the cost of them further. With reduced carbon fuel prices, coal and oil production companies are finding it difficult to justify costly development in some fields. Thus, this round of dropping fossil fuel prices may be the beginning of the end for the fossil fuel industry. I don't expect a quick decline; rather, I expect ups and downs, with the long term trend being down. There are too many fossil fuel burning power plants and vehicles that must be replaced for that industry to close its doors for several decades.

[Ophiolite]

Yes, as there are alternates that wouldn't destroy a unique ecosystem.

Do you completely reject the possibility of tapping the resources without damaging the ecosystem? (Talking of destroying it is clear hyperbole.)

[John Cuthber]

Do you completely reject the possibility of tapping the resources without damaging the ecosystem? (Talking of destroying it is clear hyperbole.)

can you show me an example of where that has worked in the past?

[fred2014]

If I may add my tuppence:

 

It seems to me that hybrid cars don't help they actively damage what they claim to provide.

You don't build 1 engine you build 2.

2 sets of components sourced, mined, transported and manufactured on 2 production lines

to install in an extra complex car requiring increased electronics, parts and control

all of which needs manufacturing with additional maintenance and spares all round.

If I had my way they would be outlawed.

 

My belief is that these cars only exist because the oil industry is trying to delay

any change over to full electric for as long as possible.

Full electric means not just less petrol/diesel consumption - it also means less maintenance

and less need for fuel pumps.

Fewer spares, less complex maintenance, less lubrication - in a phrase - an entire

industry devastated from top to bottom and the share price of oil companies

falling through the floor.

 

The only thing stopping that is insufficient electrical production by other means.

We just couldn't power all our transport by current or projected generation.

Fracking is a totally desperate and seriously dangerous red herring.

 

Nuclear fusion will not be running anytime in the next 50 years and in practice

is not much "cleaner" than fission anyway. Just a little safer to run.

At least it will be if anyone can be bother to build and operate them safely

which - given the history of fission even to this very day - seems unlikely.

 

Hybrid cars seem like the worst possible thing to buy into to me.

[Ophiolite]

can you show me an example of where that has worked in the past?

Do you have no belief in the possibility that we can learn from past mistakes, that we can do better tomorrow that we did yesterday, that we should accept defeat from the outset? That doesn't square with how I have read your philosophy over the years of reading your posts, so I ask you to revisit the possibility with the benefit of your positive beliefs.

[Moreno]

If I may add my tuppence:

 

It seems to me that hybrid cars don't help they actively damage what they claim to provide.

You don't build 1 engine you build 2.

2 sets of components sourced, mined, transported and manufactured on 2 production lines

to install in an extra complex car requiring increased electronics, parts and control

all of which needs manufacturing with additional maintenance and spares all round.

If I had my way they would be outlawed.

 

My belief is that these cars only exist because the oil industry is trying to delay

any change over to full electric for as long as possible.

Full electric means not just less petrol/diesel consumption - it also means less maintenance

and less need for fuel pumps.

Fewer spares, less complex maintenance, less lubrication - in a phrase - an entire

industry devastated from top to bottom and the share price of oil companies

falling through the floor.

 

The only thing stopping that is insufficient electrical production by other means.

We just couldn't power all our transport by current or projected generation.

Fracking is a totally desperate and seriously dangerous red herring.

 

Nuclear fusion will not be running anytime in the next 50 years and in practice

is not much "cleaner" than fission anyway. Just a little safer to run.

At least it will be if anyone can be bother to build and operate them safely

which - given the history of fission even to this very day - seems unlikely.

 

Hybrid cars seem like the worst possible thing to buy into to me.

An average American driver makes 50% of trips on less than 5km distance and 90% of trips on less than 50km distance. Therefore plug-in hybrid with 100km battery range and brake recuperation could cut fuel consumption up to 10 times. Subsequently as gasoline part of it is used 10 times less frequent, there is fewer oil changes, expenses for spare parts are smaller etc. Also plug-in hybrid opens an interesting possibility for free-piston generator which is even smaller, lighter and possibly cheaper and more fuel efficient than a common engine. I don't think this is a tricks of Oil Industry.

 

The only alternative to ICE and hybrid cars at near future technology is metal-air fuel cell car. But it would require to create completely new immense infrastructure in comparison to hybrids.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Moreno

[EdEarl]

Supercapacitor development is improving faster than battery development, and estimates are that supercapacitors can replace batteries within ten years. Driverless cars may be replacing driven cars by that time frame. These two technologies will revolutionize transportation. What it means for consumers is not yet clear. I suspect various countries will improvise different laws and corresponding changes to their transportation systems. For example, an integrated mass transit system consisting of Musk's hyperloop or rail, bus and autos might pick up customers at their home, office, or other location, deliver them to a nearby destination, which could be final or interim, e.g., the bus or hyperloop station, and other scenarios. The cost reduction from driverless cars may make mass transit both economical and convenient. Even if personal ownership of cars continues as it is now, the merger of supercapacitors or improved batteries will endanger the oil industry.

[Ophiolite]

Even if personal ownership of cars continues as it is now, the merger of supercapacitors or improved batteries will endanger the oil industry.

The oil industry is not endangered it is ultimately doomed, as are most current industries. In fifty years at most mobile phones will be a museum pieces.

[Moreno]

Supercapacitor development is improving faster than battery development, and estimates are that supercapacitors can replace batteries within ten years. Driverless cars may be replacing driven cars by that time frame. These two technologies will revolutionize transportation. What it means for consumers is not yet clear. I suspect various countries will improvise different laws and corresponding changes to their transportation systems. For example, an integrated mass transit system consisting of Musk's hyperloop or rail, bus and autos might pick up customers at their home, office, or other location, deliver them to a nearby destination, which could be final or interim, e.g., the bus or hyperloop station, and other scenarios. The cost reduction from driverless cars may make mass transit both economical and convenient. Even if personal ownership of cars continues as it is now, the merger of supercapacitors or improved batteries will endanger the oil industry.

Possibly. However, I don't think it is going to be any kind of a supercapacitor we saw up to date. Rather it may be some kind of electric energy storage which involve no chemical reactions. I don't think it will have carbon based electrodes or liquid electrolyte.

 

The oil industry is not endangered it is ultimately doomed, as are most current industries. In fifty years at most mobile phones will be a museum pieces.

 

 

Ultimately yes, because it's non replenishable. however electric transport will not bring the end to it as lot of oil is used in chemical industry.

[Endy0816]

Do you completely reject the possibility of tapping the resources without damaging the ecosystem? (Talking of destroying it is clear hyperbole.)

Talking about the surrounding Valley and the assorted geyser and pool ecosystems based off the higher temperatures.

 

Anyways already protected and we have alternatives.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Endy0816

[John Cuthber]

Do you have no belief in the possibility that we can learn from past mistakes, that we can do better tomorrow that we did yesterday, that we should accept defeat from the outset? That doesn't square with how I have read your philosophy over the years of reading your posts, so I ask you to revisit the possibility with the benefit of your positive beliefs.

If trashing the environment in the pursuit of profit was a one-off you would have a point but as I asked- when did it work in the past?

 

in any event, there are less fragile places you can extract energy.

Edited January 31, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Endy0816]

I'm sure people are thinking in terms of a reasonably clean energy source(not the first time that it has been suggested). Just misses the fact that something precious could be destroyed in the process.

[EdEarl]

The oil industry is not endangered it is ultimately doomed, as are most current industries. In fifty years at most mobile phones will be a museum pieces.

I agree that the fossil oil industry is ultimately doomed, but renewable oil is not doomed. The cost of renewable oil is now high, but economics changes along with technology, politics, culture, climate, and even the conservative GOP...Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave considering the current GOP platform. Change is inevitable, and the rate of change is now faster than ever, and the inevitable will occur quickly. There are so many things changing we can only guess about the outcome, except it will be interesting.

I'm sure people are thinking in terms of a reasonably clean energy source(not the first time that it has been suggested). Just misses the fact that something precious could be destroyed in the process.

The environment is changed by every person, some more than others. Protecting the environment requires world wide agreement and cooperation for the time being. However, technology may eventually allow us to live in harmony with a wild environment. I hope we can save all of the majestic wildlife still alive, but I am pessimistic.

[CarbonBlock]

 

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.

In terms of carbon sequestering, bio-fuels create short term sequestering and released when burned. Fossil fuel use releases carbon sequestered thousands of years ago.

 

I just hope gas price drops don't start a car buying trend away from hybrids and back towards monster gas guzzlers.

[EdEarl]

In terms of carbon sequestering, bio-fuels create short term sequestering and released when burned. Fossil fuel use releases carbon sequestered thousands of years ago.

 

I just hope gas price drops don't start a car buying trend away from hybrids and back towards monster gas guzzlers.

A return of gas guzzlers is unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, people are buying smaller cars because they are less expensive, and the few people have excess disposable income to spend on a large car. In addition, regulations have changed and are likely to become more restrictive for vehicles that generate CO2.

[MH4UAstragon]

Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuels seem to be the most viable option at the moment. They work with any feedstock material so the process can use cleaner fossil fuels (like natural gas at the moment) and then switch to fast-growing biomass (algae, kudzu, duckweed, etc).

 

Or the Methanol-to-Gasoline Process specifically to make Gasoline. Excess Methanol would be the Octane Booster instead of Ethanol we use now.

 

Biodiesel made from algae oils will still be relevant even with FT processes because engines run so much better on the stuff. Lubricates and cleans out engine better than normal diesel and doesn't produce the infamous "diesel stink" from sulfur.

[Moreno]

Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuels seem to be the most viable option at the moment. They work with any feedstock material so the process can use cleaner fossil fuels (like natural gas at the moment) and then switch to fast-growing biomass (algae, kudzu, duckweed, etc).

 

Or the Methanol-to-Gasoline Process specifically to make Gasoline. Excess Methanol would be the Octane Booster instead of Ethanol we use now.

 

Biodiesel made from algae oils will still be relevant even with FT processes because engines run so much better on the stuff. Lubricates and cleans out engine better than normal diesel and doesn't produce the infamous "diesel stink" from sulfur.

How efficient is Fischer-Tropsch Process? ​