5 ms·

I suspect the grandparent was hinting that if we went ahead and generated 10x more electrical energy than now, we'd use it to just stop using fossil fuels entir

by zizee 7y ago

I suspect the grandparent was hinting that if we went ahead and generated 10x more electrical energy than now, we'd use it to just stop using fossil fuels entirely, rather than keep using fossil fuels and then pulling that CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

ekianjo 7y ago
You can't stop using fossil fuels for everything just yet. Rockets, planes, still need fuels with high energy density - they won't run on batteries (at least with the current technology). There are of course other industries where fossil fuels are currently the basis for chemical reactions as well.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Hydrogen from hydrolysis seems like it might work, if you are willing to replace the current fleet of vehicles.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    We can make hydrocarbon fuels too. Eg Fischer–Tropsch, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel etc. Hydrogen is more efficient though.
  - eru 7y ago
    Yes, but hydrogen is just a bad battery. It's awkward and relatively unsafe to handle, and has low energy density. You'd be better off making eg synthetic petrol.
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  Those two are a very small portion of total emissions.
- bennofs 7y ago
  But there is power to fuel, and I think the main problem with power-to-fuel is energy consumption of the process.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115301610 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811... it looks like input electricity cost is around half of the costs and efficiency is around 50%. If electricity is abundant then this is still ok.
- eru 7y ago
  You can make synthetic plane fuel, whose burning just releases the same carbon captured when made. (I don't know enough about rocket fuel.) Of course, making that plane fuel will cost energy. But probably closer to eg 2-3x the energy regained on burning than 10x.

by zizee 7y ago

ekianjo 7y ago

You can't stop using fossil fuels for everything just yet. Rockets, planes, still need fuels with high energy density - they won't run on batteries (at least with the current technology). There are of course other industries where fossil fuels are currently the basis for chemical reactions as well.

saagarjha 7y ago
Hydrogen from hydrolysis seems like it might work, if you are willing to replace the current fleet of vehicles.
- fulafel 7y ago
  We can make hydrocarbon fuels too. Eg Fischer–Tropsch, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel etc. Hydrogen is more efficient though.
- eru 7y ago
  Yes, but hydrogen is just a bad battery. It's awkward and relatively unsafe to handle, and has low energy density. You'd be better off making eg synthetic petrol.
fallingfrog 7y ago
Those two are a very small portion of total emissions.
bennofs 7y ago
But there is power to fuel, and I think the main problem with power-to-fuel is energy consumption of the process.
- fulafel 7y ago
  From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115301610 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811... it looks like input electricity cost is around half of the costs and efficiency is around 50%. If electricity is abundant then this is still ok.
eru 7y ago
You can make synthetic plane fuel, whose burning just releases the same carbon captured when made. (I don't know enough about rocket fuel.) Of course, making that plane fuel will cost energy. But probably closer to eg 2-3x the energy regained on burning than 10x.