4 ms·

It's amazing how gasoline itself was only used from 1892 to current time. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/history-of-gasoline.php https://www.eia.g

It's amazing how gasoline itself was only used from 1892 to current time. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/history-of-gasoline.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/history-of-gaso... So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years." That's so cool, and puts alot of conversation about environmentalism into prospective.

dr_orpheus 5y ago
I'm not sure I totally understand your point here. How did 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green? And we as of yet have not changed to 100% nuclear and/or recyclable and don't have the technology yet to achieve that goal of nuclear energy for "4 billion years"
- nine_k 5y ago
  It'd be pretty hard to advance the civilization from coal-based energy straight into nuclear / solar, without all the carbohydrates-powered cars, trucks, and airplanes in the meantime.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Has anyone actually looked into this in depth? It feels like a cheap throwaway line that you can use against new tech that's not really caught on yet, but as we're here in 2021 with EVs and nuclear power and wind turbines etc., what was actually stopping us getting there faster if we weren't distracted by oil? (either it magically didn't exist or somehow even more magically people succesfully priced in the carbon from the start).
    - oceanplexian 5y ago
      As crazy as it sounds, I think without oil civilization would have been set back 1000 years or more. We went from horse and buggy to space travel in a few decades, due in no small part to having a cheap, storable, high-density energy source that literally comes out of the ground.
mikepurvis 5y ago
Going more granular, it's easy to see other steps on this pathway— coal, then oil/gasoline/fuel, and now many uses like power generation and some fleet vehicles (taxis, buses) are shifted to NG. In any case, I agree! None of these fuel systems were going to be long term sustainable, thought the economics involved have created an enormous incentive for certain firms and individuals to pretend so for as long as absolutely possible. Anyway, hopefully they have been enough of a technology bootstrap to enable the jump to ones that would be. Certainly no one in 1892 was going to be inventing a commercially viable nuclear reactor or solar panel with what was available at the time.
johnchristopher 5y ago
> So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years." Oil washing, interesting. It's not like we decided 150 year ago for a clear path from coal to oil to nuclear, thinking "let us bootstrap nuclear with oil until we either run out of oil or alter the planet too much".
karaterobot 5y ago
> So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years." I'm interpreting this sentence as meaning "think about how we've far we've come in 150 years: from inventing gasoline, to being in a position to consider an environmentally sustainable energy source on the time scale of 4 billion years".

dr_orpheus 5y ago

I'm not sure I totally understand your point here. How did 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green? And we as of yet have not changed to 100% nuclear and/or recyclable and don't have the technology yet to achieve that goal of nuclear energy for "4 billion years"

nine_k 5y ago
It'd be pretty hard to advance the civilization from coal-based energy straight into nuclear / solar, without all the carbohydrates-powered cars, trucks, and airplanes in the meantime.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Has anyone actually looked into this in depth? It feels like a cheap throwaway line that you can use against new tech that's not really caught on yet, but as we're here in 2021 with EVs and nuclear power and wind turbines etc., what was actually stopping us getting there faster if we weren't distracted by oil? (either it magically didn't exist or somehow even more magically people succesfully priced in the carbon from the start).
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    As crazy as it sounds, I think without oil civilization would have been set back 1000 years or more. We went from horse and buggy to space travel in a few decades, due in no small part to having a cheap, storable, high-density energy source that literally comes out of the ground.

mikepurvis 5y ago

Going more granular, it's easy to see other steps on this pathway— coal, then oil/gasoline/fuel, and now many uses like power generation and some fleet vehicles (taxis, buses) are shifted to NG. In any case, I agree! None of these fuel systems were going to be long term sustainable, thought the economics involved have created an enormous incentive for certain firms and individuals to pretend so for as long as absolutely possible. Anyway, hopefully they have been enough of a technology bootstrap to enable the jump to ones that would be. Certainly no one in 1892 was going to be inventing a commercially viable nuclear reactor or solar panel with what was available at the time.

johnchristopher 5y ago

> So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years." Oil washing, interesting. It's not like we decided 150 year ago for a clear path from coal to oil to nuclear, thinking "let us bootstrap nuclear with oil until we either run out of oil or alter the planet too much".

karaterobot 5y ago

> So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years." I'm interpreting this sentence as meaning "think about how we've far we've come in 150 years: from inventing gasoline, to being in a position to consider an environmentally sustainable energy source on the time scale of 4 billion years".