4 ms·

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the lifespan of oil using transport. A car might have a 15 year lifespan so we can't see a massive change in petroleu

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the lifespan of oil using transport. A car might have a 15 year lifespan so we can't see a massive change in petroleum use until that time. However boats, trains and planes have at least double that lifespan. Because of capital investments, surely an alternative to oil is still 20 years away?

ams6110 11y ago
Trains are feasible to run on electricity, since they run on fixed tracks and you can have overhead cables or 3rd rail configurations. There is no realistic chance that ships and planes will not use petroleum fuel for the foreseeable future.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  That's pretty much political though. Nuclear powered cargo ships have already worked, and Russia says they're putting theirs back into service in a bit. Although if foreseeable future means obvious stuff, then yes, the huge number of non-nuclear ships means it'll take a long time even if everyone liked the idea tomorrow.
  - nradov 11y ago
    Nuclear powered civilian ships are not going to be generally viable in our lifetimes due to real safety and security concerns that go beyond mere politics. Operating a nuclear reactor requires more, and more highly trained, crew members. Plus you need constant armed security on par with what land-based nuclear power plants have. Those additional costs outweigh any possible savings on fuel. Russia operates only a few of them on limited service in areas where security isn't a major concern, and they don't really try to make a profit. The long-term future of merchant shipping will probably be larger, more efficient ships running on liquid fuels (biofuels or direct chemical synthesis), plus automated auxiliary sails.
- cplease 11y ago
  Aviation and marine fuel demand is only a small fraction of global demand. Think about it; for most of history shipping was entirely wind-powered. Clearly not comparable to today's massive freighters, but don't rule out new technologies finding a way to harness more wind and sun at sea. And at the end of the day if there's a surplus of renewable electricity, it can be converted into high density fuels such as gas or diesel. That technology exists today; it can only get better especially if a cost incentive existed.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Because of capital investments, surely an alternative to oil is still 20 years away? It depends what you mean by alternative. The day when the last gallon of oil is burned may not ever even happen, but the day when 20% of things that currently burn oil have been replaced with something else could be very soon, and 50% only a few years after that, etc.
- iofj 11y ago
  Oh so we're going to start burning more oil ? That sucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox (Note that you can currently see it in action. Fossil fuel usage is very near an all time high while prices dropped 75% due to oversupply)
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    The current market situation with oil is very strange. My guess is OPEC sees the writing on the wall regarding climate change, i.e. that not all of the reserves in the ground can be used, and have decided that they're going to pump as much of theirs as they can before some law is passed that will turn what's left in the ground into a pumpkin. So now what we need is that law. A cross-subsidy would be perfect: Tax fossil fuels and use the money to subsidize fossil alternatives. Oil is cheap now, so the tax wouldn't pinch much, but it would make alternatives more attractive for anyone in a position to make that choice (e.g. buy an electric car). Which would then correspondingly reduce demand for oil, which would reduce the price of oil. Then we can keep oil prices from crashing by increasing the tax, which provides more money for the subsidy, which makes oil comparatively even less attractive, which reduces demand for oil, and so on until we're off of oil. But the price of gas never needs to go back above ~$3/gallon -- it's just that by the end the $3/gallon you're paying is $2.50 of tax and the tax is paying for everybody to get an electric car.

ams6110 11y ago

Trains are feasible to run on electricity, since they run on fixed tracks and you can have overhead cables or 3rd rail configurations. There is no realistic chance that ships and planes will not use petroleum fuel for the foreseeable future.

MichaelGG 11y ago
That's pretty much political though. Nuclear powered cargo ships have already worked, and Russia says they're putting theirs back into service in a bit. Although if foreseeable future means obvious stuff, then yes, the huge number of non-nuclear ships means it'll take a long time even if everyone liked the idea tomorrow.
- nradov 11y ago
  Nuclear powered civilian ships are not going to be generally viable in our lifetimes due to real safety and security concerns that go beyond mere politics. Operating a nuclear reactor requires more, and more highly trained, crew members. Plus you need constant armed security on par with what land-based nuclear power plants have. Those additional costs outweigh any possible savings on fuel. Russia operates only a few of them on limited service in areas where security isn't a major concern, and they don't really try to make a profit. The long-term future of merchant shipping will probably be larger, more efficient ships running on liquid fuels (biofuels or direct chemical synthesis), plus automated auxiliary sails.
cplease 11y ago
Aviation and marine fuel demand is only a small fraction of global demand. Think about it; for most of history shipping was entirely wind-powered. Clearly not comparable to today's massive freighters, but don't rule out new technologies finding a way to harness more wind and sun at sea. And at the end of the day if there's a surplus of renewable electricity, it can be converted into high density fuels such as gas or diesel. That technology exists today; it can only get better especially if a cost incentive existed.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> Because of capital investments, surely an alternative to oil is still 20 years away? It depends what you mean by alternative. The day when the last gallon of oil is burned may not ever even happen, but the day when 20% of things that currently burn oil have been replaced with something else could be very soon, and 50% only a few years after that, etc.

iofj 11y ago
Oh so we're going to start burning more oil ? That sucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox (Note that you can currently see it in action. Fossil fuel usage is very near an all time high while prices dropped 75% due to oversupply)
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  The current market situation with oil is very strange. My guess is OPEC sees the writing on the wall regarding climate change, i.e. that not all of the reserves in the ground can be used, and have decided that they're going to pump as much of theirs as they can before some law is passed that will turn what's left in the ground into a pumpkin. So now what we need is that law. A cross-subsidy would be perfect: Tax fossil fuels and use the money to subsidize fossil alternatives. Oil is cheap now, so the tax wouldn't pinch much, but it would make alternatives more attractive for anyone in a position to make that choice (e.g. buy an electric car). Which would then correspondingly reduce demand for oil, which would reduce the price of oil. Then we can keep oil prices from crashing by increasing the tax, which provides more money for the subsidy, which makes oil comparatively even less attractive, which reduces demand for oil, and so on until we're off of oil. But the price of gas never needs to go back above ~$3/gallon -- it's just that by the end the $3/gallon you're paying is $2.50 of tax and the tax is paying for everybody to get an electric car.