3 ms·

The seemingly constant point of contention is the 'battery technology'. I'm sure you have heard some form of: "Electric cars will become dominant once battery

The seemingly constant point of contention is the 'battery technology'. I'm sure you have heard some form of: "Electric cars will become dominant once battery technology catches up" I feel like we don't often consider the thought that hydrocarbons may be the best 'battery' technology. Edit: I don't really think they can be, outside of back-up generators. Power stations supported by The Grid should be far better than gas stations supported by pipelines/trucks.

crush-n-spread 9y ago
Burning hydrocarbons is damaging to the ecosystem of Earth, and for that reason it should be used as little as possible.
greglindahl 9y ago
There have been billions of $ spent on synthetic hydrocarbons research, so I think "we" have considered it.
- shuntress 9y ago
  'We' in this context intended to mean 'people discussing alternative energy' not 'humanity overall' I don't often see it brought up, even in discussions of energy storage support for inconsistent energy sources.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    3 technologies I've seen discussed extensively in the alternative energy context: * Methanol from food sources * Methanol from non-food sources (switchgrass) * Biofuels for aircraft (military and civilian) I can totally believe you didn't see these talked about. But you can find articles in the New York Times on all 3 technologies in the past couple of years.
    - shuntress 9y ago
      I guess we are pretty much at the peak of synthetic oil and it is a dead end in terms of energy storage.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    Then maybe 'you' should look into it since you are very interested in it. Other people already have, and they are not interested in looking into it any more. You can look at NAZI coal gassification efforts, methanol from switchgrass, all the way to efficient Hydrogen generation and storage, but it usually turns out that producing a complex molecule up a large potential gradient is not power efficient (even with the best chemistry and catalysts).

crush-n-spread 9y ago

Burning hydrocarbons is damaging to the ecosystem of Earth, and for that reason it should be used as little as possible.

greglindahl 9y ago

There have been billions of $ spent on synthetic hydrocarbons research, so I think "we" have considered it.

shuntress 9y ago
'We' in this context intended to mean 'people discussing alternative energy' not 'humanity overall' I don't often see it brought up, even in discussions of energy storage support for inconsistent energy sources.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  3 technologies I've seen discussed extensively in the alternative energy context: * Methanol from food sources * Methanol from non-food sources (switchgrass) * Biofuels for aircraft (military and civilian) I can totally believe you didn't see these talked about. But you can find articles in the New York Times on all 3 technologies in the past couple of years.
  - shuntress 9y ago
    I guess we are pretty much at the peak of synthetic oil and it is a dead end in terms of energy storage.
- kurthr 9y ago
  Then maybe 'you' should look into it since you are very interested in it. Other people already have, and they are not interested in looking into it any more. You can look at NAZI coal gassification efforts, methanol from switchgrass, all the way to efficient Hydrogen generation and storage, but it usually turns out that producing a complex molecule up a large potential gradient is not power efficient (even with the best chemistry and catalysts).