Why do we still use fossil fuels and other polluting energy?

[cyclohexane]

Inertia.

 

[gorcorps]

Battery capabilities are nowhere near what we need, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. They can't charge fast enough, hold enough energy, and aren't using common materials. Lithium is not common, and if we tried to go all electric vehicles we would put a huge hurt on lithium supplies in a short time. That's why recycling electronic batteries is so important... it all helps.

 

[CPA]

OP, what makes you think the wars would stop? Lithium is the most used element in EV batteries. It isn't made in a lab, it has to be extracted. Guess where most of it is located? Chile, Argentina Russia and China (and some African countries). Guess who will hold us by the balls if EV's become the norm? Oh, and in case you're wondering, Lithium has the same peak issues as oil.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Seems like nothing else can supply that amount of power. From what I hear, solar, wind, and water can't even meet what we're currently using even if we put a dam on every river and a solar or wind farm on every available square mile of land. Our power usage would have to go down, and humanity as a whole hates like hell to back off of a resource once they've gotten used to having a certain amount.

 

[Red Squirrel]

OP, what makes you think the wars would stop? Lithium is the most used element in EV batteries. It isn't made in a lab, it has to be extracted. Guess where most of it is located? Chile, Argentina Russia and China (and some African countries). Guess who will hold us by the balls if EV's become the norm? Oh, and in case you're wondering, Lithium has the same peak issues as oil.

I don't think lithium ion is the future, for that reason mostly, but generally because it's a finite resource. I think there will need to be a new advancement in not only energy density for batteries, but a way of making them cheaper, and more renewable. Lead acid would be a good example, lead is not really a finite resource compared to lithium and can be recycled over and over... but the energy density is even lower.

So something that is renewable like lead but with as much density as gas needs to happen.

 

[deadlyapp]

I don't think lithium ion is the future, for that reason mostly, but generally because it's a finite resource. I think there will need to be a new advancement in not only energy density for batteries, but a way of making them cheaper, and more renewable. Lead acid would be a good example, lead is not really a finite resource compared to lithium and can be recycled over and over... but the energy density is even lower.

So something that is renewable like lead but with as much density as gas needs to happen.

renewable like lead, lol. Do you have any idea how much pollution lead smelting causes?

 

[KeithP]

How many animals, birds and fish have died because of oil spills?

Who cares? Animals are still breeding aren't they?

How many human lives have been lost during to wars to ensure we have a steady oil flow?

So in your mind, no need for fossil fuel means world peace? LOL...you really drank I big glass of the cool-aid didn't you?

Imagine where we would be if the money on those wars was spent towards clean energy, education and health care.

You are extremely naive if you think even 10% of that money would have been spent on those items.

Listen I get, the world you would like to live in would be a wonderful place if the politicians promising to create such a would could actually deliver it to you. But the fact is they make those promises because they know they will never have to deliver it to you. They just use those promises to control you.

-KeithP

 

[Red Squirrel]

renewable like lead, lol. Do you have any idea how much pollution lead smelting causes?

One time pollution vs continous. Producing anything like solar panels, batteries, etc causes pollution, but while it is in operation if it does not pollute then it's better than the alternative.

Though lead acid is NOT the answer, it was just an example due to it's renewable nature, vs lithium which is very finite.

Most of the reasons we don't switch off fossil fuel is political though. If more money was put into finding a viable alt I'm sure we'd be there by now. Heck, nuclear is a viable alt, at least as a stepping stone, but there are lot of political reasons why there arn't nuclear cruise ships, more nuclear power plants etc... Nuclear has it's own issues though, but it's better than say, coal or natural gas.

Also, I rate my own parody thread 11/10 given it's still around causing some legit discussion. :biggrin:

 

[poofyhairguy]

Energy density.

Exactly.

Honestly the Toyota Mirai is more interesting to me than something like a Leaf or even a Tesla. Current battery technology doesn't have anywhere near the density we need for long trips, it would have to improve threefold for that to happen. Meanwhile the density of those hydrogen cells are close. The problem is the efficiency of capturing that hydrogen, which Toyota claims is solved.

There isn't a good answer yet though. Probably won't be in the era of personal ownership of cars.

When fossil fuels will go away will be in 40 years when no one really owns the cars, we just order on-demand self driving Uber cars to get us places when we need to go. At that point it will be VERY easy to move to whatever replaces oil because only one company (Uber or whatever replaces it) has to make that decision.

 

[CPA]

renewable like lead, lol. Do you have any idea how much pollution lead smelting causes?

And cancer. There's a reason why we don't have leaded fuel and lead based paints any more.

 

[CPA]

Exactly.

Honestly the Toyota Mirai is more interesting to me than something like a Leaf or even a Tesla. Current battery technology doesn't have anywhere near the density we need for long trips, it would have to improve threefold for that to happen. Meanwhile the density of those hydrogen cells are close. The problem is the efficiency of capturing that hydrogen, which Toyota claims is solved.

There isn't a good answer yet though. Probably won't be in the era of personal ownership of cars.

When fossil fuels will go away will be in 40 years when no one really owns the cars, we just order on-demand self driving Uber cars to get us places when we need to go. At that point it will be VERY easy to move to whatever replaces oil because only one company (Uber or whatever replaces it) has to make that decision.

I am glad I will not be alive when self-driving cars become mandatory, or even the norm.

 

[sandorski]

Others covered it. Takes time to even build the Manufacturing infrastructure to produce all them new cars. Nevermind the refueling capacity. Probably take a couple decades before the vast majority of new cars are not petrol powered to some extent. Everything might be a Hybrid in a decade. However, I just pulled that out of my ass, so...

 

[poofyhairguy]

I am glad I will not be alive when self-driving cars become mandatory, or even the norm.

Not me. I wish I lived in that world today. I commute for an hour and a half total everyday. If I could do my internet neffing during that time then I would have so much more leisure time to do other things. Like more internet neffing.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I have still hope for fusion coming. If we could just take away all of the coal and gas powerplants over the world, it would make a large improvement over current pollution. And it is stationary, so no infrastructures problems. Gasoline cars and trucks would be less of a problem. And all green investments can be used for better energy storage (batteries) to in the end replace gasoline engines and fuel tanks for better batteries and electromotors. With fusion, we no longer need to put effort in windmill parks or solar panel parks.

But since there is no usable fusion reactor yet, Rubbiatron or ADS reactors are good second best replacements for current fission and fossil fuel powerplants.
It would make a huge difference in pollution. And subcritical, so no issues of runaway reactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-driven_sub-critical_reactor

 

[Grooveriding]

Along with everything else mentioned here, the reality is we use too much power. Regardless of what form of power we use, we're using too much of it. Good luck convincing people to go without, that is only going to happen once we do hit the crisis and prices rise to the point only the extremely rich can afford to continue to consume energy at the same rate.

That and the oil and gas interests are some of the most powerful with a lot of resources. They have too many elected officials that are bought and paid for, that their interests trump the publics. Government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

 

[Jeff7]

I am glad I will not be alive when self-driving cars become mandatory, or even the norm.

Why/

 

[blackangst1]

Because fossel fuels, as of now, dollar for dollar, are the most efficient.

 

[Svnla]

How do the OP and supporters suggest we power the huge jets with hundreds of people on board plus heavy cargo to fly nonstop 12-13 hours across the Pacific Ocean (LAX to NRT)?

 

[OutHouse]

Granted, they were cool 15 years ago, but given current technology and battery capabilities I see absolutely no reason to even mess around with fossil fuel anymore. It's just easier to use solar or wind to charge batteries and be done with it and not have to refine oil over and over again.

Not to mention they sound quieter.

this sounds like a question a 10 year old would ask. are you 10?

 

[OutHouse]

Along with everything else mentioned here, the reality is we use too much power. Regardless of what form of power we use, we're using too much of it.

you know this how?

 

[William Gaatjes]

you know this how?

There is one thing i know of that has been researched with credible numbers.
Every house has a doorbell, and almost all of those doorbells have a bell transformer. A calculation was done once, that if all doorbell transformers in Europe alone would be removed, several powerplants could be shutdown. I do not know the exact number anymore, but could have been 5. The point is that a doorbell is 99,999% of the time doing nothing but be in standby.
Consuming idle power.

Also, because it is cheaper, real power switches have been removed from electronic devices.
All these devices combined in all houses consume enough power that when all shutdown, another few powerplants in Europe alone can be shutdown. He has a point. Actual powerswitches have been removed because they are expensive. Electronics that are always on the 230V or 120V AC net are cheaper. At least that is the argument i once read about. I have everything that does not have a real powerswitch, behind a socket or a plug with a powerswitch.

 

[Red Squirrel]

How do the OP and supporters suggest we power the huge jets with hundreds of people on board plus heavy cargo to fly nonstop 12-13 hours across the Pacific Ocean (LAX to NRT)?

Put solar panels on the wings! And wind turbines along the body. :biggrin:

Actually this is where some kind of renewable fuel that can be created would be handy, something along the lines of how you can make hydrogen with electricity. I don't think hydrogen itself is dense enough though.

 

[Gunslinger08]

When do you think we'll stop using fossil fuels? I mean, we all know it's non-renewable. If less is being produced than we're using, we will eventually run out. I don't think anyone has a good handle on how much is really left, but we do know that our consumption is going up as poorer countries grow economically. The numbers I could find are anywhere from no to minuscule annual production of new oil/coal/gas. Essentially, it's taken millions to hundreds of millions of years to produce the fuel that we'll use up in say 500 years. Do you think we'll actually stop using it before we run out?

Even when stop, I think we need to come up with a new method of energy storage. The currently popular battery technologies, like lithium-ion, still require massive amounts of non-renewable resources if we start using them for all energy storage.

I wonder how long it will be until we can viably launch solar collecting satellite arrays that beam the power back here?

 

[poofyhairguy]

There is one thing i know of that has been researched with credible numbers.
Every house has a doorbell, and almost all of those doorbells have a bell transformer. A calculation was done once, that if all doorbell transformers in Europe alone would be removed, several powerplants could be shutdown. I do not know the exact number anymore, but could have been 5. The point is that a doorbell is 99,999% of the time doing nothing but be in standby.
Consuming idle power.

Also, because it is cheaper, real power switches have been removed from electronic devices.
All these devices combined in all houses consume enough power that when all shutdown, another few powerplants in Europe alone can be shutdown. He has a point. Actual powerswitches have been removed because they are expensive. Electronics that are always on the 230V or 120V AC net are cheaper. At least that is the argument i once read about. I have everything that does not have a real powerswitch, behind a socket or a plug with a powerswitch.

No one said we don't WASTE power (we do) but I don't think it can be said we use too much power. Power if a finite resource, if we used too much then it would cost more and then we would use less. The market is self correcting in that way.

 

[Jeff7]

When do you think we'll stop using fossil fuels? I mean, we all know it's non-renewable. If less is being produced than we're using, we will eventually run out. I don't think anyone has a good handle on how much is really left, but we do know that our consumption is going up as poorer countries grow economically. The numbers I could find are anywhere from no to minuscule annual production of new oil/coal/gas. Essentially, it's taken millions to hundreds of millions of years to produce the fuel that we'll use up in say 500 years. Do you think we'll actually stop using it before we run out?

Not everyone knows that it's non-renewable. Some still think that it's continuously produced, or that magic-sky-entity-of-the-day will continue to conjure up supplies to keep us humans happy.
Running out: Don't know when.
But it's steadily been getting more costly to extract it, since the easiest reserves were discovered and exploited first. Just like the running-out problem though, we don't know how quickly that's going to ramp up. Add in human-based wackiness with regards to gambling on oil futures and political goings-on, and you end up with a volatile price structure.

Even when stop, I think we need to come up with a new method of energy storage. The currently popular battery technologies, like lithium-ion, still require massive amounts of non-renewable resources if we start using them for all energy storage.

Yes, let's hope someone figures something out. So far, progress has been slow.

I wonder how long it will be until we can viably launch solar collecting satellite arrays that beam the power back here?

I'd still go with fusion power. Concerns that come to mind with satellites:
- Unknown effects of powerful energy beams punching through the atmosphere.
- Beam mistargeting, either accidental or intentional.

There is one thing i know of that has been researched with credible numbers.
Every house has a doorbell, and almost all of those doorbells have a bell transformer. A calculation was done once, that if all doorbell transformers in Europe alone would be removed, several powerplants could be shutdown. I do not know the exact number anymore, but could have been 5. The point is that a doorbell is 99,999% of the time doing nothing but be in standby.
Consuming idle power.

Also, because it is cheaper, real power switches have been removed from electronic devices.
All these devices combined in all houses consume enough power that when all shutdown, another few powerplants in Europe alone can be shutdown. He has a point. Actual powerswitches have been removed because they are expensive. Electronics that are always on the 230V or 120V AC net are cheaper. At least that is the argument i once read about. I have everything that does not have a real powerswitch, behind a socket or a plug with a powerswitch.

I only ever took apart one doorbell, but I thought it had a spring to return it to the off position. What is using power when a doorbell is off? The neon light in the button, if so-equipped?


Soft-off: Yes, definitely an issue. At least newer supplies are suppose to have lower power consumption when off. But I still see 0.5W as a fairly common idle-mode power consumption. It's quite a bit of power to do absolutely nothing useful.
It's still better than the big wall-warts that were just a transformer and a bridge rectifier. They'd get fairly warm with no load.