5 ms·

Oil isn't going anywhere any time soon. We might not use it for energy production, but it is a key ingredient in pretty much any modern technology. From plastic

Oil isn't going anywhere any time soon. We might not use it for energy production, but it is a key ingredient in pretty much any modern technology. From plastics to asphalt. Until we can find away to synthesis or substitute it, it will be around for the foreseeable future.

the8472 9y ago
Synthesizing it from organic waste is possible today. It is mostly a question of efficiency.
- astrodust 9y ago
  With really inexpensive electricity it would be trivial to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons, or even reprocess existing stock into new forms. The biggest barrier today is that it's more energy efficient to dig up new oil than to make it.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Bill Nye lamented in his book "Unstoppable" that while he invested in a company that created synthetic hydrocarbons from algae, the company found the margins to be too thin for typical fuels like methane or gasoline, but were highly profitable for long chain hydrocarbons used in applications such as makeup.
csomar 9y ago
Free energy will make the world a better place in unimaginable way.
- pm90 9y ago
  There is no such thing as "Free Energy" even fusion will require training an army of engineers to work, maintain etc. Clean Energy... yes that is very much possible.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    You are not wrong that there is no "free energy" but energy so much cheaper than now that its cost is a rounding error would does not roll off the tongue. An army of engineers is much cheaper than what we are doing now with oil, solar and wind which each employ several armies.
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  but if energy were free and unlimited, and its use uninhibited, wouldn't we just heat the planet up even more?
  - nitrogen 9y ago
    If you had unlimited energy, you could probably find a way to shift energy from the atmosphere into space.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    Surely there is some way to use nearly limitless energy to reduce temperatures or otherwise deal with this problem. There are many technologies we simply cannot use now because they aren't cost effective from an energy standpoint.
ageofwant 9y ago
We have understood how to synthesize oil from air for the better part of this century. All you need is energy.
eighthnate 9y ago
It isn't going anywhere in terms of energy production either. The energy density of oil, gas and coal isn't something that the fads ( solar, wind, etc ) can come close to. Most of the world's electricity comes from coal. Most of the world's transportation fuel is oil. Most of the world's heating/cooking/etc is from gas/coal. Unless, the rest of the 3rd world is content with living in 3rd world standard, consumption of oil, gas and coal is going to increase worldwide. Coal may stagnate in the west because of laws, but collectively ( oil/gas/coal ) usage is going to increase in the west and the rest of the world. Unless there is a true economic collapse, increased oil/gas/coal is a fact of physics. And of course, you pointed out that we use petrochemicals and their byproducts in almost every facet of modern life from toothpaste to smartphones to food packaging to fertilizers. It is amazing how a small group of environmentalists and their allies at the "clean" energy industry are able to lie about basic physical facts. The major growth in population and energy use is going to come from africa/south asia/southeast asia/middle east. Do they really expect these people mired in poverty to forgo oil/coal/gas/etc just for environmental reasons? Do they expect these people to live at 1/10th the living standards of the western world just to appease the wealthy environmentalists?
- DennisP 9y ago
  "The energy density of oil, gas and coal" is far exceeded by the energy density of any form of nuclear. A 1GW coal plant burns a 100-car trainload of coal every three days. A conventional 1GW nuclear plant uses an 18-wheeler truck full of fuel rods every eighteen months. More advanced nuclear is even better. A 1GW fast reactor or thorium reactor would use one ton of fuel, about the size of a beachball, every year. Your lifetime personal energy needs, including transportation, would come from a piece of fuel smaller than a golfball. With fusion, the small amount of deuterium in your morning shower could provide for all of your energy needs for a year.
  - eighthnate 9y ago
    > "The energy density of oil, gas and coal" is far exceeded by the energy density of any form of nuclear. I know. That's why I compared oil, gas and coal to "solar, wind, etc". Not nuclear. All things being equal, we should be going for nuclear rather than solar,wind,etc. But nuclear has a publicity problem.
gozur88 9y ago
We have ways to synthesize hydrocarbons - it's just that they require very cheap energy to be practical. Also some things (like asphalt) are only cheap because we're already refining oil to make fuels. It's essentially a byproduct. It may be that other road surfaces become more economic if the alternative is to refine oil just to get the asphalt.

the8472 9y ago

Synthesizing it from organic waste is possible today. It is mostly a question of efficiency.

astrodust 9y ago
With really inexpensive electricity it would be trivial to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons, or even reprocess existing stock into new forms. The biggest barrier today is that it's more energy efficient to dig up new oil than to make it.
rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Bill Nye lamented in his book "Unstoppable" that while he invested in a company that created synthetic hydrocarbons from algae, the company found the margins to be too thin for typical fuels like methane or gasoline, but were highly profitable for long chain hydrocarbons used in applications such as makeup.

csomar 9y ago

Free energy will make the world a better place in unimaginable way.

pm90 9y ago
There is no such thing as "Free Energy" even fusion will require training an army of engineers to work, maintain etc. Clean Energy... yes that is very much possible.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  You are not wrong that there is no "free energy" but energy so much cheaper than now that its cost is a rounding error would does not roll off the tongue. An army of engineers is much cheaper than what we are doing now with oil, solar and wind which each employ several armies.
HillaryBriss 9y ago
but if energy were free and unlimited, and its use uninhibited, wouldn't we just heat the planet up even more?
- nitrogen 9y ago
  If you had unlimited energy, you could probably find a way to shift energy from the atmosphere into space.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  Surely there is some way to use nearly limitless energy to reduce temperatures or otherwise deal with this problem. There are many technologies we simply cannot use now because they aren't cost effective from an energy standpoint.

ageofwant 9y ago

We have understood how to synthesize oil from air for the better part of this century. All you need is energy.

eighthnate 9y ago

It isn't going anywhere in terms of energy production either. The energy density of oil, gas and coal isn't something that the fads ( solar, wind, etc ) can come close to. Most of the world's electricity comes from coal. Most of the world's transportation fuel is oil. Most of the world's heating/cooking/etc is from gas/coal. Unless, the rest of the 3rd world is content with living in 3rd world standard, consumption of oil, gas and coal is going to increase worldwide. Coal may stagnate in the west because of laws, but collectively ( oil/gas/coal ) usage is going to increase in the west and the rest of the world. Unless there is a true economic collapse, increased oil/gas/coal is a fact of physics. And of course, you pointed out that we use petrochemicals and their byproducts in almost every facet of modern life from toothpaste to smartphones to food packaging to fertilizers. It is amazing how a small group of environmentalists and their allies at the "clean" energy industry are able to lie about basic physical facts. The major growth in population and energy use is going to come from africa/south asia/southeast asia/middle east. Do they really expect these people mired in poverty to forgo oil/coal/gas/etc just for environmental reasons? Do they expect these people to live at 1/10th the living standards of the western world just to appease the wealthy environmentalists?

DennisP 9y ago
"The energy density of oil, gas and coal" is far exceeded by the energy density of any form of nuclear. A 1GW coal plant burns a 100-car trainload of coal every three days. A conventional 1GW nuclear plant uses an 18-wheeler truck full of fuel rods every eighteen months. More advanced nuclear is even better. A 1GW fast reactor or thorium reactor would use one ton of fuel, about the size of a beachball, every year. Your lifetime personal energy needs, including transportation, would come from a piece of fuel smaller than a golfball. With fusion, the small amount of deuterium in your morning shower could provide for all of your energy needs for a year.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > "The energy density of oil, gas and coal" is far exceeded by the energy density of any form of nuclear. I know. That's why I compared oil, gas and coal to "solar, wind, etc". Not nuclear. All things being equal, we should be going for nuclear rather than solar,wind,etc. But nuclear has a publicity problem.

gozur88 9y ago

We have ways to synthesize hydrocarbons - it's just that they require very cheap energy to be practical. Also some things (like asphalt) are only cheap because we're already refining oil to make fuels. It's essentially a byproduct. It may be that other road surfaces become more economic if the alternative is to refine oil just to get the asphalt.