Are we really addicted to fossil fuels ?

[bomberfox]

More shroud waving BS. Fossil fuels are why we can enjoy the lifestyles we do and why billions have been released from poverty thanks to their immediate utility and affordability

 

[flogger]

We are returning the sequestered carbon of the earth's past mass extinctions back into the air. Carbon that took millions of years to remove from our environment and make the Earth amenable to life again after the oceans turned red with anaerobic bacteria and 95% of species went extinct. What could go wrong with that do you think?

Nothing ..... The world will keep getting greener as it already is doing

 

[iguanaman]

Nothing ..... The world will keep getting greener as it already is doing

That is not what happened that last time all that carbon was in our air. Nearly everything died including the oceans. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

The Great Dying: Earth's largest-ever mass extinction is a warning for humanity​

In another paper that was released at around the same time, researchers discovered a rare molecule called coronene in Italy and China which can only be formed when underground deposits of fossil fuels are super-heated. This was another clue which helped put the pieces together.

Here's how Brand describes how the events unfolded: Over the course of a million years, extensive volcanic activity in what is now Siberia flowed through cracks and crevices of sedimentary rocks, searing oil and gas deposits as it moved along, producing the coronene scientists recently discovered.
Consequently, massive lava beds were created. "It would cover at least half of the United States and to a thickness of at least several kilometers," said Brand.

This process gradually released gigantic amounts of heat-trapping carbon gases at levels much higher than today. For comparison, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations during that time period are estimated to be a few thousand parts per million (ppm), whereas today, our CO2 level, while higher than it's been in the last 3 million years, is still significantly less, at 415 ppm (but rising fast).

The immense amount of greenhouse gases present back then warmed global atmospheric temperatures to levels 18 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. Because of the impact this had on ecosystems, it forced land animals to rapidly adapt, move or die. Seventy percent did not make it.

In the ocean, atmospheric carbon dioxide was absorbed, mixing with water and forming sulfuric acid, acidifying the seas. As a result, coral disintegrated and the shells of ocean creatures dissolved.

Back on land, the hotter climate shifted vegetation and ignited fires. That exposed more rocks, and erosion went into overdrive. As a result, an overabundance of nutrients flowed into the oceans, causing at first an explosion of life. But then there was the inevitable death and decomposition, which ate up most of the life-giving oxygen in the ocean. Ninety percent of ocean life died. Brand says existence was getting hit from all angles.

"These are not individual and separate causes, but they all acted together, they acted in concert, and that is why I call it the perfect storm. You got hit on this side with temperature, on this side with acidification and then finally the knock-out punch came from deoxygenation."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-dying-permian-triassic-extinction-event-warning-humanity/

 

[longview]

We are returning the sequestered carbon of the earth's past mass extinctions back into the air. Carbon that took millions of years to remove from our environment and make the Earth amenable to life again. What could go wrong with that do you think?

Except that the amount of carbon stored in hydrocarbons is finite, and would not change Earth's capability to support life.
Remember that it has taken an unrestrained 140 years to increase the CO2 level by 140 ppm,
roughly half of a doubling, and now we are looking at ways to massively trim emissions.

 

[longview]

That is not what happened that last time all that carbon was in our air. Everything died.

Not from the carbon, but the lack of sunlight.
That think layer of ash all over the world, the PT boundary, is because all that ash was in the air,
and blocking sunlight.

 

[iguanaman]

Not from the carbon, but the lack of sunlight.
That think layer of ash all over the world, the PT boundary, is because all that ash was in the air,
and blocking sunlight.

No that is definitely not what happened. It was CO2 levels of over 1000 PPM caused by volcanic eruptions over a million years. That carbon is all sequestered underground now and we are digging it up and releasing it back into the air. That is the rope I was talking about and we will hang ourselves with it if we do not stop soon.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-dying-permian-triassic-extinction-event-warning-humanity/

 

[longview]

No that is definitely not what happened. It was CO2 levels of over 1000 PPM caused by volcanic eruptions over a million years. That carbon is all sequestered underground now and we are digging it up and releasing it back into the air. That is the rope I was talking about and we will hang ourselves with it if we do not stop soon.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-dying-permian-triassic-extinction-event-warning-humanity/

So you think the high levels of CO2 CAUSED the volcanic eruptions?
Please describe the mechanism?

 

[iguanaman]

So you think the high levels of CO2 CAUSED the volcanic eruptions?
Please describe the mechanism?

The eruptions preceded the Great Dying and in 1000's of years were the cause of the 1000PPM + CO2 levels silly. Volcanoes emit CO2 from deep in the earth like we do when we burn natural gas, coal or oil . You didn't know that? But before you start blaming them for our current situation you should realize that humans are now emitting 60 times the fossil CO2 of all current volcanoes on earth.

According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes annually, and some U.S. states emit more CO2 in a year than all volcanoes combined.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-volcanoes-co2-emissions-383647479337#:~:text=According to the U.S. National,year than all volcanoes combined.

 

[mrjurrs]

So what .... its entirely normal View attachment 67444731?

Join us in 2023 and try again.

 

[DrewPaul]

I think we already have a viable option to replace fossil fuels, at least one good enough to work until
the next better idea comes along.
Nature stores energy as hydrocarbons, and we can do the same, diluted and low density energy sources like wind and solar,
can be used to create the hydrocarbon fuels we demand. The only real issue is that the technology is not quite economically viable.
As oil gets more expensive the viability of fuels made from atmospheric CO2, water and electricity will become more viable.

There are some promising technologies and to some extent economics will play a role. Its not helpful to make oil artificially more expensive to get people off fossil fuels. Or to foment crazy fears the sky is falling. The pressure to get off will occur naturally. There was an alleged break through in super conductivity that was premature but it needs to be pursued.

 

[longview]

The eruptions preceded the Great Dying and in 1000's of years were the cause of the 1000PPM + CO2 levels silly. Volcanoes emit CO2 from deep in the earth like we do when we burn natural gas, coal or oil . You didn't know that? But before you start blaming them for our current situation you should realize that humans are now emitting 60 times the fossil CO2 of all current volcanoes on earth.

According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes annually, and some U.S. states emit more CO2 in a year than all volcanoes combined.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-volcanoes-co2-emissions-383647479337#:~:text=According to the U.S. National,year than all volcanoes combined.

Sorry, you are not understanding your logical misstep.
You said,
"It was CO2 levels of over 1000 PPM caused by volcanic eruptions over a million years."
Sorry, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has nothing to do with if a volcanio erupts or not.
The CO2 level might increase after a bunch of eruptions, but the higher level does not cause the eruptions.

 

[iguanaman]

Sorry, you are not understanding your logical misstep.
You said,
"It was CO2 levels of over 1000 PPM caused by volcanic eruptions over a million years."
Sorry, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has nothing to do with if a volcanio erupts or not.
The CO2 level might increase after a bunch of eruptions, but the higher level does not cause the eruptions.

No duh....who would think that CO2 levels would cause eruptions? I was just stating that high CO2 levels existed before humans and were the cause of mass extinctions in the past. Nature (plants) eventually removed that excess carbon from the air and allowed temperatures to return to normal and life to thrive again. It took millions of years though. We are now digging up that same carbon and potentially releasing it all in a few centuries and some don't think that could be a disaster. Life as we know it requires a very limited range of temperatures and while some life might survive in a mass extinction humans certainly will not. Humans are already in uncharted waters as far as CO2 levels are concerned.

 

[longview]

There are some promising technologies and to some extent economics will play a role. Its not helpful to make oil artificially more expensive to get people off fossil fuels. Or to foment crazy fears the sky is falling. The pressure to get off will occur naturally. There was an alleged break through in super conductivity that was premature but it needs to be pursued.

You are correct that it will not help to make oil artificially more expensive, but that is not a real concern
as oil will increase in price on it's own. The man made fuels actually have some paths to get less expensive.
About 9 years ago the Naval Research Laboratory's were saying that the process efficiency could be around 60%.
(Yes, all energy storage comes at a cost of energy) but this meant that a 33 kWh gallon of gasoline
could be created from 55 kWh of electricity. If that electricity had a wholesale cost of $0.5 per kWh,
it would equal a per barrel oil price of $96.50.
Since that time Sunfire Energy claims that at scale, a process efficiency of 80% is possible.
In addition at some point people will realize that non dispatchable electricity has less value than
dispatchable electricity. So kWh from Solar and Wind, are not as valuable as kWh from Nuclear or Hydro.
IEA Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020
People with home solar will not always get a 1:1 retail credit for their Surplus electricity, but they may be able to get fuel credits.

Think of man made fuels as just an energy storage device, a very high energy density battery, but a battery
that already has and existing demand and distribution infrastructure.

It is also a path to our sustainable energy future, at least until we get something better.
Also the man made fuels can be 100% carbon neutral, so we could do this for a million years and not change the CO2 level.

 

[longview]

No duh....who would think that CO2 levels would cause eruptions? I was just stating that high CO2 levels existed before humans and were the cause of mass extinctions in the past.

Except that it was not the CO2 levels that caused the mass extinctions, but the ash blocking the sunlight.

 

[iguanaman]

You are correct that it will not help to make oil artificially more expensive, but that is not a real concern
as oil will increase in price on it's own. The man made fuels actually have some paths to get less expensive.
About 9 years ago the Naval Research Laboratory's were saying that the process efficiency could be around 60%.
(Yes, all energy storage comes at a cost of energy) but this meant that a 33 kWh gallon of gasoline
could be created from 55 kWh of electricity. If that electricity had a wholesale cost of $0.5 per kWh,
it would equal a per barrel oil price of $96.50.
Since that time Sunfire Energy claims that at scale, a process efficiency of 80% is possible.
In addition at some point people will realize that non dispatchable electricity has less value than
dispatchable electricity. So kWh from Solar and Wind, are not as valuable as kWh from Nuclear or Hydro.
IEA Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020
People with home solar will not always get a 1:1 retail credit for their Surplus electricity, but they may be able to get fuel credits.

Think of man made fuels as just an energy storage device, a very high energy density battery, but a battery
that already has and existing demand and distribution infrastructure.

It is also a path to our sustainable energy future, at least until we get something better.
Also the man made fuels can be 100% carbon neutral, so we could do this for a million years and not change the CO2 level.

We certainly cannot burn syngas in conventional I/C vehicles, that would be nuts. Take that 60% efficiency and burn it in a engine that is only 20% efficient at moving a vehicle and see how many miles you get for your energy. It is far too wasteful for us ever to be energy independent. EV's are the future of land transportation. Even hybrids will be using an I/C engine for power generation only if you battery runs out. Here is a hybrid solution that uses a tiny gas turbine to generate electricity to charge the batteries in a long range EV. Turbines can be made very efficient running at a set optimal speed for power generation. All this complexity costs money and raises maintenance costs so they would only be for those that drive long distances regularly. 95% of us would be fine with batteries alone.

https://www.azom.com/news.aspx?newsID=59020

 

[longview]

We certainly cannot burn syngas in I/C engines, that would be nuts. Take that 60% efficiency and burn it in a engine that is only 20% efficient at moving a vehicle and see how many miles you get for your energy. It is far too wasteful for us ever to be energy independent. EV's are the future of land transportation. Even hybrids will be using an I/C engine for power generation only.

Of course we can burn man made gasoline, and jet fuel in I/C engines, it is better than the stuff made from oil.
The benefit is the energy density which even at a 20% Carnot efficiency, is still 4 times more energy dense as the best batteries.
Also consider that cars like the Camry Hybrid now have an Carnot efficiency near 40%.
In theory a fuel cell hybrid with a steam reformer, could get close to a 60% efficiency.
(It is about time we let Mr Carnot retire!)
Think of hydrocarbon energy storage for what it is, a super high energy density storage
device that nature has evolved over millions of years!

 

[iguanaman]

Of course we can burn man made gasoline, and jet fuel in I/C engines, it is better than the stuff made from oil.
The benefit is the energy density which even at a 20% Carnot efficiency, is still 4 times more energy dense as the best batteries.
Also consider that cars like the Camry Hybrid now have an Carnot efficiency near 40%.
In theory a fuel cell hybrid with a steam reformer, could get close to a 60% efficiency.
(It is about time we let Mr Carnot retire!)
Think of hydrocarbon energy storage for what it is, a super high energy density storage
device that nature has evolved over millions of years!

I can see using synfuel in long distance hybrids that use it to run a generator for when the battery is low. I/C engines tuned for best efficiency running at a set RPM could be fairly efficient. But not to move a vehicle. Electric motors are just too much more efficient at that. They are 85% efficient at converting power to movement and that does not include the power regeneration from braking they provide. There is a battery powered mining train that recharges itself from braking alone and needs no power source at all. Most of us will be fine with the current range of batteries alone though. Be honest. When is the last time you drove over 300 miles without stopping?

INGENIOUS ELECTRIC TRAIN FULLY CHARGES ITSELF BY ROLLING DOWNHILL WITH HEAVY LOAD​

NOTHING CAN STOP THE INFINITY TRAIN!​

https://futurism.com/the-byte/electric-train-charges-rolling

 

[longview]

I can see using synfuel in long distance hybrids that use it to run a generator for when the battery is low. I/C engines tuned for best efficiency running at a set RPM could be fairly efficient. But not to move a vehicle. Electric motors are just too much more efficient at that. They are 85% efficient at converting power to movement and that does not include the power regeneration from braking they provide. There is a battery powered mining train that recharges itself from braking alone and needs no power source at all. Most of us will be fine with the current range of batteries alone though. Be honest. When is the last time you drove over 300 miles without stopping?

INGENIOUS ELECTRIC TRAIN FULLY CHARGES ITSELF BY ROLLING DOWNHILL WITH HEAVY LOAD​

NOTHING CAN STOP THE INFINITY TRAIN!​

https://futurism.com/the-byte/electric-train-charges-rolling

What matters is how you carry your energy, and the density of the package!

 

[PoS]

They don't come from fossils, therefore they are not fossil fuel. I would have thought that was obvious.

You claimed nuclear is renewable energy. So how exactly are they renewable again?

Importing an energy producing product that only gets more and more expensive without exploring ways to produce your own energy is really stupid. Really stupid.

And it's really predictable that people from places that produce and sell fossil fuels are getting increasingly shrill about their opposition to alternative energy sources.

LOL the US is now the world's largest producer of oil. Thanks for once again proving what little you know.

 

[Grand Mal]

LOL the US is now the world's largest producer of oil. Thanks for once again proving what little you know.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say the US was short of oil.
What's wrong with you? Don't you realize that there's lots of countries out there that aren't called USA? When I say that a country that has to buy energy is smart to find ways to produce their own, d'ya think I might be talking about one of those other countries?
Jesus.

 

[iguanaman]

What matters is how you carry your energy, and the density of the package!

What matters more is how much actual work that precious energy can do. We can't just dig unlimited amounts of energy out of the ground anymore. We have to make it ourselves and wasting it in inefficient I/C engines is no longer an option

 

[longview]

What matters more is how much actual work that precious energy can do. We can't just dig unlimited amounts of energy out of the ground anymore. We have to make it ourselves and wasting it in inefficient I/C engines is no longer an option

I am sorry that you do not understand the physics!
Consider that even at 20% gasoline contains 2.57 kWh per kg.
Energy density
and Lithium-ion battery contain at best 0.243 kWh per kg.
This means that at a 20% Carnot efficiency, Gasoline has more than 10 times the energy by mass as the best batteries.
With a Hybrid like the current Camry, at a 40% efficiency, the energy density is about 20 times that
of Lithium-ion batteries.
Look at it another way, the ~1000 lb battery in a tesla Model 3 can push the car about 300 miles.
In a Camry hybrid, 300 miles is about 36 lbs of gasoline.

 

[iguanaman]

I am sorry that you do not understand the physics!
Consider that even at 20% gasoline contains 2.57 kWh per kg.
Energy density
and Lithium-ion battery contain at best 0.243 kWh per kg.
This means that at a 20% Carnot efficiency, Gasoline has more than 10 times the energy by mass as the best batteries.
With a Hybrid like the current Camry, at a 40% efficiency, the energy density is about 20 times that
of Lithium-ion batteries.
Look at it another way, the ~1000 lb battery in a tesla Model 3 can push the car about 300 miles.
In a Camry hybrid, 300 miles is about 36 lbs of gasoline.

What is so important about energy density? We are trying to conserve energy not compact it. Energy becomes more and more expensive when we cannot just pump it out of the ground. We must find ways to use energy more efficiently if we ever hope to wean ourselves off fossil energy. There is nothing efficient about moving a car with an IC engine. EV's can easily surpass 90% energy efficiency when you count the energy recovered by regeneration. If you insist on driving over 300 miles without stopping a EV hybrid with a I/C powered generator is the answer you need. They are far more efficient than any Camry ever could be. But the short answer is that everyone will be driving electric motor powered vehicles in the near future. With a generator equipped EV you can have the efficiency benefits of an EV and still be able to drive until you drop from exhaustion.

The difficulty for ICE vehicles is by providing driving flexibility; they sacrifice thermodynamic efficiency. As The Driven points out, “petrol and diesel cars are very inefficient in converting the energy in their tanks into motion at the wheel ... over 60 per cent of the energy is wasted as heat.”
Particularly in city driving, engines waste fuel while idling or operating at very low outputs compared to their design capacity, and engines at low output achieve very low efficiencies. However fossil-fuelled power stations are designed and operated to maximise thermodynamic efficiency, typically achieving between 40 - 55 per cent. In fact, an EV charged by a gasoline-powered generator would consume less gasoline in total than a conventional vehicle.
And, unlike EVs, most conventional vehicles do not recover the energy wasted to heat by braking for traffic lights.
There is also the emissions associated with exploring for oil and gas, transporting and converting it into fuel, and transporting it to local distributors before trucking it to petrol stations.

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/

 

[longview]

What is so important about energy density? We are trying to conserve energy not compact it. Energy becomes more and more expensive when we cannot just pump it out of the ground. We must find ways to use energy more efficiently if we ever hope to wean ourselves off fossil energy. There is nothing efficient about moving a car with an IC engine. EV's can easily surpass 90% energy efficiency when you count the energy recovered by regeneration. If you insist on driving over 300 miles without stopping a EV hybrid with a I/C powered generator is the answer you need. They are far more efficient than any Camry ever could be. But the short answer is that everyone will be driving electric motor powered vehicles in the near future. With a generator equipped EV you can have the efficiency benefits of an EV and still be able to drive until you drop from exhaustion.

The difficulty for ICE vehicles is by providing driving flexibility; they sacrifice thermodynamic efficiency. As The Driven points out, “petrol and diesel cars are very inefficient in converting the energy in their tanks into motion at the wheel ... over 60 per cent of the energy is wasted as heat.”
Particularly in city driving, engines waste fuel while idling or operating at very low outputs compared to their design capacity, and engines at low output achieve very low efficiencies. However fossil-fuelled power stations are designed and operated to maximise thermodynamic efficiency, typically achieving between 40 - 55 per cent. In fact, an EV charged by a gasoline-powered generator would consume less gasoline in total than a conventional vehicle.
And, unlike EVs, most conventional vehicles do not recover the energy wasted to heat by braking for traffic lights.
There is also the emissions associated with exploring for oil and gas, transporting and converting it into fuel, and transporting it to local distributors before trucking it to petrol stations.

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/

Actually check your facts, if a battery electric is charged from a power plant, the efficiency is about 25%, and energy density is the only reason airlines work! We need the portable high energy density that batteries cannot yet provide, or may ever provide.

 

[ralfy]

From what I remember, something like 70 pct of heavy equipment in mining, up to half of energy needed in manufacturing, petrochemicals used for thousands of applications, mechanized agriculture, and much of shipping, especially involve extensive supply chains spanning dozens of countries, involve fossil fuels.

In short, what's involved is not just addiction to but heavy dependence on it for global industrialization. This applies to even making components needed for renewable energy.

In addition, the global economy is driven by competitive capitalism, which means the world population not only needs high energy returns but increasing energy returns, to ensure both overproduction and overconsumption. That includes electric vehicles for leisurely drives, the extensive infrastructure that they need, combinations of energy sources that are needed to power them, the the extensive infrastructure needed for those energy sources and to manufacture and ship electric vehicles, and more.

Overproduction and overconsumption as part of competitive capitalism are also the reasons why there's no conservation of energy and resources in industrialized civilization, as what's conserved will be used for something else as part of additional profits.

The catch are limits to growth and environmental damage:

List of countries by ecological footprint - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org