What is the best way to end fossil fuel dependance?

[rtxoff]

The best way to end fossil fuel dependance is something nobody of us will like. But because the question came up, here is the answer:

The best way to end fossil fuel dependance is to stop using fossil fuels :-)

We have already the technology for it, but no one is willing to do it because it involves spending lots of money on it and under circumstances not getting the money back.

So we are not going to do it. Sad but true.

[YNM]

You are talking about changing the fundamental building blocks of modern civilization. It's not something that gets done in a decade or two. Remember all the justified skepticsim over the methodology of the IPCC? The splicing of data to match expected outcomes? Cherry picking station results? The hockey stick? The continued controversy regarding the "science" of the IPCC?

There's enough to do without shattering the worlds economy.

Not doing the big change means a big, big loser. And that's a lose to humanity, not just to you or them.

Also, which IPCC results are you taking on ? This one ?

[randomness5555]

The US is sitting on one of the richest geothermal vents we could hope for in Yellowstone.

Isn't yellowstone due to blow itself and most of the surrounding area into oblivion some time in the next 20-200 years?

As for a fossil fuel alternative, FUSION AND HYDROGEN FUEL. Seriously, you can make fuel from water. Fuel that when used, changes back INTO MORE OF THE SAME FUEL. Fuel that makes up about 70% (ish) of the planet's surface. And fusion which (once working) will provide free power almost forever.

The big companies of the world probably would try to stifle the development of these alternatives...until fossil fuel reseves become so low that they dont have a choice. Sure we have fracking now (BTW, why does everyone complain about fracking? There may be a chance of eco disaster, but nobody points out that you basically have the most valueable material on earth under your town, and the jobs that mining it would create) but that will run out as well. Once there is no more oil (or at least not enough) they will probably be some of the first to change. Or they will fail entirely. Either way.

Edited May 22, 2014 by randomness5555

[SargeRho]

(BTW, why does everyone complain about fracking? There may be a chance of eco disaster, but nobody points out that you basically have the most valueable material on earth under your town, and the jobs that mining it would create)

A mix of toxic chemicals being rammed into the ground, earthquakes, lots of methane leaks, which is thousands of times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, groundwater contamination.

[sgt_flyer]

one of the question would be - if we end the usage of fossil fuels - is there already something that could replace the plastics we use everyday ? (note, using plants for that can be a problem - you'll need to both grow vegetables / wheat etc and the plants needed to create plastics replacements - unless you'll be able to use leftovers from food production.

[SargeRho]

Algae are a good source thereof I think.

[mdatspace]

snip

Yellowstone will not erupt soon.

A mix of toxic chemicals being rammed into the ground, earthquakes, lots of methane leaks, which is thousands of times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, groundwater contamination.

Small earthquakes. Fracking happens at 1,500-5,000 feet depth. Aquifers are only a few hundred feet at most under the surface. However, fracking fluid does contain toxins. That is a problem for workers and the nearby area. Edited May 22, 2014 by mdatspace

[randomness5555]

A mix of toxic chemicals being rammed into the ground, earthquakes, lots of methane leaks, which is thousands of times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, groundwater contamination.

The earthquake thing was never proven to be linked...Ok it probably was, but it was never proven.

[Seret]

lots of methane leaks, which is thousands of times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2

It has about 30 times the global warming potential, not thousands. But you're right that leaks from fracking are a concern. If they're not controlled really tightly it's possible gas from fracking could have indirect emissions on the magntude of coal, and that would be a disaster.

[cantab]

For me the seismicity is still a worry with fracking. Best thing would be to try and minimise it altogether. Earthquakes in general are, after all, something we still don't fully understand the causes of, in that we can't say what made a major quake happen when it happened.

[Alchemist]

For power generation I don't think we can do with anything solar-powered (including growing biofuel) on it's own - the required area is a bit too big (still, having solar cells on the roofs or buildind solar power stations in deserts can be useful, just that is a bit too climate-dependent), the same goes goes for wing generators and hydroelectrics (place them where you can't build anything more useful, but don't think they'll solve all the power problems), so the answer should be in something compact and powerful. If we don't get fusion running then it's fission, just don't let these guys that think it's too dangerous near the station - with them it really can be dangerous.

As for energy storage and fuel... electrolytically generated hydrogen is good perspective (if you solve storage problems and get enough material for the electrodes - the best one is platinum ), but for some applications biofuels or synthetic fuels are a better option.

As for water for hydrogen production - don't electrolyze saltwater (unless you want to get chlorine) and be careful with organic pollutants (these might be not too much of a problem, but check for them first or you might create some dangerous chemicals or cover your electrodes with some nasty stuff), but you really don't need anything ultra-pure.

And oil... leave it to the chemists, it's a useful raw material.

[rtxoff]

For power generation I don't think we can do with anything solar-powered (including growing biofuel) on it's own - the required area is a bit too big (still, having solar cells on the roofs or buildind solar power stations in deserts can be useful.

That is not true, there is enough space to power the whole world. Actually an area smaller then the sahara is sufficient. I am not talking about doing it in the sahara just correcting the argument there is not enough space because this is common misbelief.

[Alchemist]

That is not true, there is enough space to power the whole world. Actually an area smaller then the sahara is sufficient. I am not talking about doing it in the sahara just correcting the argument there is not enough space because this is common misbelief.

Okay then, but still there's the problem that the territories that can be used for these and the territories that require most power are often pretty far away. And we know what a gas pipe or a power line in the wrong territory can mean...

Anyway, replenishable power sources always have their inherited costs, just sometimes we don't recognize them. Mostly that's about territory and I don't think that wasting agricultural lands (especially by flooding them for hydroelectrics) is a worthy idea. My opinion is: if there's a good option, use it, if not, don't push that too far. If for a particular region switching mostly to these is a viable option, that's good, if not, then don't cover everything with what doesn't pay off (especially by forcing something like that by laws - that approach never goes well)

[Rondon]

That is not true, there is enough space to power the whole world. Actually an area smaller then the sahara is sufficient. I am not talking about doing it in the sahara just correcting the argument there is not enough space because this is common misbelief.

To put a figure on it. If the world was powered by one square of solar power that square would have an area in or around 400,000 square kilometers which is very big. but that's less than 5% of the surface are of the Sahara.

[phoenix_ca]

For solar power (or wind) to be viable as a main source of power, we'd need batteries. Huge, massive piles of the things. Energy density of the best batteries we've managed to create is still crap compared to the energy density of say, hydrogen to be used in a fuel cell. It just doesn't make sense. Maybe if you used all the power to electrolize water to make fuel for massive fuel cells, but then you're talking about a whole hell of a lot of infrastructure just to make it work.

Or, you can put a 5MW dense plasma fusion reactor (assuming it works, and the peeps at Focus Fusion can solve the remaining density issue by next year as they think they can; note that it'll still be at least 3-4 years after that for an actual practical reactor) in each city neighbourhood, and not have to deal with the huge losses involved with power transmission over long distances. If it works (and there's every reason to believe it will), such a solution would be far superior to solar power.

Edited May 24, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Red Iron Crown]

Energy density doesn't matter that much if you're not moving the batteries around, it's really only important for vehicles.

[rtxoff]

Well there are many ways to store energy, it does not have to be batteries. You can built reservoir power stations, flywheels, water electrolysis plants and maybe some other forms for storing energy.

[phoenix_ca]

Energy density doesn't matter that much if you're not moving the batteries around, it's really only important for vehicles.

Maybe not, but it does influence just how many of the things you need. (Or how many pumps you need, or how much salt, yadda yadda yadda.)

Well there are many ways to store energy, it does not have to be batteries. You can built reservoir power stations, flywheels, water electrolysis plants and maybe some other forms for storing energy.

And every single version requires a lot of new infrastructure to work. I thought I had pointed that out when I mentioned electrolysis.

Edited May 24, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[cantab]

Or, you can put a 5MW dense plasma fusion reactor (assuming it works, and the peeps at Focus Fusion can solve the remaining density issue by next year as they think they can; note that it'll still be at least 3-4 years after that for an actual practical reactor) in each city neighbourhood, and not have to deal with the huge losses involved with power transmission over long distances. If it works (and there's every reason to believe it will), such a solution would be far superior to solar power.

Considering that fusion reactors give off radiation, you won't be seeing one in each city neighbourhood, there'll be too many protesting residents.

Meanwhile long-distance power transmission isn't that lossy. HVDC gives losses of just 3% per thousand km, with improvements continuing to be made.

[WinkAllKerb'']

wayS are known since a long time, only matter are jobs , financial & military interest behind fossile energy. *shrug*

EDIT: needless to ask what is slowing the switch process in this evasive list ... *grumpf*

Edited May 24, 2014 by WinkAllKerb''

[phoenix_ca]

Considering that fusion reactors give off radiation, you won't be seeing one in each city neighbourhood, there'll be too many protesting residents.

I don't know what gave you that idea, since the reactor I was referencing very, very clearly spells-out on their website and various other literature that the p-B11 reaction they're using is aneutronic. The radiation given-off by the reactor is primarily x-rays, and the rare occasional low-energy neutron, easily shielded by a few inches of material. Once you turn the reactor off, the chamber is pretty much safe to walk right into, and after a few hours handling the reactor can be done with almost no special precautions (though given that they'll need to use beryllium for the electrodes you probably will want to wear latex gloves or something).

[rtxoff]

Maybe not, but it does influence just how many of the things you need. (Or how many pumps you need, or how much salt, yadda yadda yadda.)

And every single version requires a lot of new infrastructure to work. I thought I had pointed that out when I mentioned electrolysis.

Well someone can always find excuses not to do something. I really do not think building that infrastructure is going to be THAT big problem. Hell and we wanna go to the stars? With this moral we will not even make it to Mars.

[lajoswinkler]

Nuclear fission with breeder reactors and recycling fuel for base load. I don't know about the intermediate and peaks.

There's enough uranium and, one day, thorium, to power our asses for hundreds of years.

Then nuclear fusion.

[cantab]

The side reactions do produce neutron radiation, and while it's not much when it comes to energy losses it's more than "occasional" and probably enough to be hazardous. The X-rays are also hazardous.

In any case, shielding the reactor is the easy bit. Heck, achieving net energy gain is the easy bit. Convincing the public the reactor poses no threat to them, that's the hard bit. Considering how radiation-phobic the general public are nowadays, I can't see your idea of fusion power stations being widely located in urban areas happening any time soon.

Basically, I don't highly rate the intelligence or the rationality of the general public on things like this.

[phoenix_ca]

The side reactions do produce neutron radiation, and while it's not much when it comes to energy losses it's more than "occasional" and probably enough to be hazardous. The X-rays are also hazardous.

You're talking about energy levels (for the neutron radiation anyway) that are less than the background radiation on earth we're exposed to every day. It's not enough to be hazardous unless you're standing inside the reactor with no shielding at all. The neutrons don't have enough energy to make any parts of the reactor or its shielding radioactive either like in a fission reactor. And x-rays aren't really hazardous unless you're talking about really massive doses. Again, you'd have to stand in the reactor chamber to be exposed, and again, what radiation there is can easily be absorbed by a relatively small amount of material.

Turn the reactor off, and poof, no radiation risk (okay, it takes a few hours but seriously, a few hours is a very short time to quibble over). Convincing the public that it is safe will only be complicated if more people, like you, over-estimate the danger of such low-energy neutrons and some x-rays that can both be stopped by a bit of shielding.

The solution here is pretty simple: Turn off the reactor and wait a few hours before you go inside it. Pretty much the same basic precaution one takes in a CT-scanning room. Don't walk into the room when it's on.

Edited May 24, 2014 by phoenix_ca