5 ms·

> At current consumption rates we run out of both in ~50-60 years At current prices. As prices go up new sources of fuel become economical and the cycle contin

> At current consumption rates we run out of both in ~50-60 years At current prices. As prices go up new sources of fuel become economical and the cycle continues. Not to mention that methane emissions from agriculture are a significant contributor as well (30% from cows) so just removing hydrocarbons doesn’t solve that problem. It seems like an unrealistic bet that hydrocarbon-based emissions drop to 0 just because you think we’ll run out of fuel in 50 years. Does that mean airplanes stop flying in 50 years? No one is making these bets in the marketplace alongside you for good reason. And remember, consumption grows quite a bit year over year so you’re looking at a much shorter time frame if your prediction were to be true.

osigurdson 2y ago
Isn't there a reasonable chance aircraft will be electric in 50 years?
- dalyons 2y ago
  Or running on synthetic fuel made with renewable energy
  - worik 2y ago
    ...or flying with fairy wings We can make anything up. Why not stick to the facts, as we know them, and reasonable projections? There is no reasonable projection for any fuel other than fossil fuel to maintain the sort of flying we do now.
    - osigurdson 2y ago
      We weren't talking about warp drives here. Certain types of aircraft are seem to be not that far off. 50 years is a ling time. Unless you are deeply involved in battery technology, your prediction seems overly pessimistic. Not suggesting the article below is in any way conclusive but just one of many that turn up on a basic google search. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/passenger-electric-planes-become-reality-decade/story?id=106223258 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/passenger-electric-planes-be...
      - vlovich123 2y ago
        > and fly up to 500 miles without having to stop to recharge 500 miles is nothing. The median flight distance for a commercial flight is ~2000 miles. And this is a concept plane. Certification of a plane is ~5-9 years so let's assume on the longer side since electric planes aren't really a thing. So 20% of your time budget has been spent building a replacement for a puddle jumper. There's a lot of them but the real fuel consumption happens by the large commercial jets.
    - nradov 2y ago
      This isn't a fantasy. Real airplanes have flown using synthetic kerosene manufactured using renewable energy sources. This isn't magic, it's just chemical engineering. Currently that fuel is significantly more expensive than fossil fuel but the cost differential will narrow over time.
      - worik 2y ago
        > eal airplanes have flown using synthetic kerosene manufactured using renewable energy sources That is a fantasy The cost of doing that at a scle approaching what we use now rules it out except for niche uses
  - cozzyd 2y ago
    Are these synthetic fuels not GHG producers?
    - abenga 2y ago
      The assumption is they create Carbon that is recycled in the short term from the atmosphere, without digging up carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago.
Retric 2y ago
Consumption is also heavily tied to prices. Who is going to pay the equivalent of 50$/gallon when they can use an EV? We use oil because it’s cheap not because it’s the only possible solution. It’s not that we’re going to run out 100% year X, it’s that as economies of scale end priced inherently spike. Gas stations can scale down to 1940’s levels by having most of them close, but giant fuel refineries, pipelines, etc need scale to be worth the maintenance.
- reramuyc 2y ago
  [dead]
- geysersam 2y ago
  For some things fossil fuels is still the only feasible (meaning, remotely close in cost) solution. Air fuel and fertilizer comes to mind.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Not when we start talking 4x or more the price. The cost premium of biofuels for air travel aren’t that high and the scale can meet demand for long distance flights. Fertilizer from nitrogen in the atmosphere is again cost competitive relative to that kind of increase. Batteries are fine for ocean shipping on a ~50 year timescale, and that basically covers burning fossil fuels. Using it as a feedstock for plastics etc is a non issue for climate change.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  You're basically arguing for the latest estimates for peak oil. Maybe they're right this time but I still think that improving technology & prices make new sources available. > Who is going to pay the equivalent of 50$/gallon when they can use an EV? If we're going to be arguing for peak oil, let's argue for peak lithium then too. EVs are going to get more and more expensive too as we have to extract from more expensive lithium stores. > We use oil because it’s cheap not because it’s the only possible solution For some things sure. Aviation fuel and ship fuel notably don't have any real replacements on the horizon. From your sibling comment: > The cost premium of biofuels for air travel aren’t that high and the scale can meet demand for long distance flights. Fertilizer from nitrogen in the atmosphere is again cost competitive relative to that kind of increase. Batteries are fine for ocean shipping on a ~50 year timescale, and that basically covers burning fossil fuels. Using it as a feedstock for plastics etc is a non issue for climate change. I think you're mistaken here. Biofuels for air travel are much more complex than just pricing. You've got regulatory approvals, cost of retrofitting existing engines / figuring out how to make them drop-in without needing petroleum, etc. If you're thinking that batteries are fine for ocean shipping, I'd like a sample of what you're taking because the energy demands of massive ship containers dwarf the capabilities of batteries. That's why they're talking hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear. > It’s not that we’re going to run out 100% year X, it’s that as economies of scale end priced inherently spike. Gas stations can scale down to 1940’s levels by having most of them close, but giant fuel refineries, pipelines, etc need scale to be worth the maintenance. Conversely, there's a huge incentive to have oil be competitively priced and avoid a total collapse of that segment. That's why you see huge resistance politically - there's no real plan put forward for how we transition to a clean energy economy for the people currently participating in the oil economy.
eimrine 2y ago
> methane emissions from agriculture are a significant contributor as well (30% from cows) Activities such as tilling of fields, planting of crops, and shipment of products cause carbon dioxide emissions. Agriculture-related emissions of carbon dioxide account for around 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

osigurdson 2y ago

Isn't there a reasonable chance aircraft will be electric in 50 years?

dalyons 2y ago
Or running on synthetic fuel made with renewable energy
- worik 2y ago
  ...or flying with fairy wings We can make anything up. Why not stick to the facts, as we know them, and reasonable projections? There is no reasonable projection for any fuel other than fossil fuel to maintain the sort of flying we do now.
  - osigurdson 2y ago
    We weren't talking about warp drives here. Certain types of aircraft are seem to be not that far off. 50 years is a ling time. Unless you are deeply involved in battery technology, your prediction seems overly pessimistic. Not suggesting the article below is in any way conclusive but just one of many that turn up on a basic google search. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/passenger-electric-planes-become-reality-decade/story?id=106223258 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/passenger-electric-planes-be...
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      > and fly up to 500 miles without having to stop to recharge 500 miles is nothing. The median flight distance for a commercial flight is ~2000 miles. And this is a concept plane. Certification of a plane is ~5-9 years so let's assume on the longer side since electric planes aren't really a thing. So 20% of your time budget has been spent building a replacement for a puddle jumper. There's a lot of them but the real fuel consumption happens by the large commercial jets.
  - nradov 2y ago
    This isn't a fantasy. Real airplanes have flown using synthetic kerosene manufactured using renewable energy sources. This isn't magic, it's just chemical engineering. Currently that fuel is significantly more expensive than fossil fuel but the cost differential will narrow over time.
    - worik 2y ago
      > eal airplanes have flown using synthetic kerosene manufactured using renewable energy sources That is a fantasy The cost of doing that at a scle approaching what we use now rules it out except for niche uses
- cozzyd 2y ago
  Are these synthetic fuels not GHG producers?
  - abenga 2y ago
    The assumption is they create Carbon that is recycled in the short term from the atmosphere, without digging up carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago.

Retric 2y ago

Consumption is also heavily tied to prices. Who is going to pay the equivalent of 50$/gallon when they can use an EV? We use oil because it’s cheap not because it’s the only possible solution. It’s not that we’re going to run out 100% year X, it’s that as economies of scale end priced inherently spike. Gas stations can scale down to 1940’s levels by having most of them close, but giant fuel refineries, pipelines, etc need scale to be worth the maintenance.

reramuyc 2y ago
[dead]
geysersam 2y ago
For some things fossil fuels is still the only feasible (meaning, remotely close in cost) solution. Air fuel and fertilizer comes to mind.
- Retric 2y ago
  Not when we start talking 4x or more the price. The cost premium of biofuels for air travel aren’t that high and the scale can meet demand for long distance flights. Fertilizer from nitrogen in the atmosphere is again cost competitive relative to that kind of increase. Batteries are fine for ocean shipping on a ~50 year timescale, and that basically covers burning fossil fuels. Using it as a feedstock for plastics etc is a non issue for climate change.
vlovich123 2y ago
You're basically arguing for the latest estimates for peak oil. Maybe they're right this time but I still think that improving technology & prices make new sources available. > Who is going to pay the equivalent of 50$/gallon when they can use an EV? If we're going to be arguing for peak oil, let's argue for peak lithium then too. EVs are going to get more and more expensive too as we have to extract from more expensive lithium stores. > We use oil because it’s cheap not because it’s the only possible solution For some things sure. Aviation fuel and ship fuel notably don't have any real replacements on the horizon. From your sibling comment: > The cost premium of biofuels for air travel aren’t that high and the scale can meet demand for long distance flights. Fertilizer from nitrogen in the atmosphere is again cost competitive relative to that kind of increase. Batteries are fine for ocean shipping on a ~50 year timescale, and that basically covers burning fossil fuels. Using it as a feedstock for plastics etc is a non issue for climate change. I think you're mistaken here. Biofuels for air travel are much more complex than just pricing. You've got regulatory approvals, cost of retrofitting existing engines / figuring out how to make them drop-in without needing petroleum, etc. If you're thinking that batteries are fine for ocean shipping, I'd like a sample of what you're taking because the energy demands of massive ship containers dwarf the capabilities of batteries. That's why they're talking hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear. > It’s not that we’re going to run out 100% year X, it’s that as economies of scale end priced inherently spike. Gas stations can scale down to 1940’s levels by having most of them close, but giant fuel refineries, pipelines, etc need scale to be worth the maintenance. Conversely, there's a huge incentive to have oil be competitively priced and avoid a total collapse of that segment. That's why you see huge resistance politically - there's no real plan put forward for how we transition to a clean energy economy for the people currently participating in the oil economy.

eimrine 2y ago

> methane emissions from agriculture are a significant contributor as well (30% from cows) Activities such as tilling of fields, planting of crops, and shipment of products cause carbon dioxide emissions. Agriculture-related emissions of carbon dioxide account for around 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions.