• phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    What’s the plan if we run out of oil? I mean seriously, it’s gonna happen eventually. Even if you want to ignore the science on climate change, you can’t ignore basic laws of the universe that oil is a finite resource. If we don’t have a plan for when it runs out, there will be utter chaos.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      you can’t ignore basic laws of the universe that oil is a finite resource

      TLDR - oil might be a finite resource but gasoline is not oil and it can be renewable. But it’s also a rapidly shrinking market.

      The stuff can literally be grown on trees. It’s cheaper to pump it out of the ground, but it’s actually not much cheaper. Fuel from plants, which we farm in bulk for human consumption, can absolutely be used to create gasoline. It’s also net-zero — because the plant takes carbon out of the atmosphere to create the oil and then it’s simply returned to the atmosphere when your burn it.

      Most gasoline in the USA contains at least 10% biofuel, and some is up to 85%. The latter requires an engine tuned to run on it, however it’s possible (and is an area of active research) if you’re willing to spend a bit more money to manufacture 100% pure biofuel that can run on unmodified engines. Porsche in particular has started selling a biofuel that is specifically designed to run on classic cars that were manufactured decades ago. They plan to produce something like a million gallons a month of the stuff, and it will work in basically any car. And if you have a classic car (designed for gasoline that contained lead) then it will work better than the fossil fuel you can buy at a gas station

      The thing is though, battery powered vehicles are way cheaper than doing any of that. And if you really need a fuel based approach (e.g. batteries are just too heavy for large aircraft), then Hydrogen is a better option than any biofuel.

      So - while gasoline can technically be environmentally friendly and is a usable source of energy for the foreseeable future, in reality it’s destined to follow horse drawn carriages and steam engines, a technology some people only use for their own personally enjoyment or to preserve our history.

    • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Synthetic. It has profit margin and purpose. Nothing we can’t fix without adding more bad things to the air…

    • Fecundpossum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Die. We will die. The only crutch that props up our massive jump from 1 billion pre industrialized society to our current 8 billion human beings on this planet, has been cheap and plentiful fossil fuel. Notably, it is the only thing that has allowed us to practice agriculture on a scale that supports our population growth. When it’s gone, there is nothing to replace it, short of a miracle fusion revolution.

      The average carbon cost to produce an electric vehicle is about 6 tons on average, not including the battery, about the same as an ICE vehicle. Where does the energy for auto manufacturing come from? Primarily coal and natural gas, with a sliver of insubstantial wind and nuclear power. About 7 barrels of oil go into each and every tire on the road (between expended energy and actual petroleum products in the tire). Charging the battery? Coal, natural gas, and the same trickle of alternative sources mentioned above.

      Speaking of those alternative energy sources, what do we use to make them? Building a nuclear power plant is likely the most carbon intensive process ever devised, from the machinery that moves the earth, to the foundry that makes the steel. As much as I’ve always wanted to believe in a cozy eco future, every time I squint a little I can see that it’s all just a coat of green paint over the same old oil field. The people trying to sell you on oil, and the people trying to sell you on alternatives to it, are doing the same thing. Selling you something. That’s all that matters to them.

      There is no feasible alternative that changes the outcome. There is no replacement for what has allowed us to create wonders and horrors beyond our ancestors wildest dreams, and sustain a population far beyond anything we could have achieved without fossil fuels. When oil finally becomes unproductive, so will the mechanisms that hold our current civilization together, and we will wind up back in 1810 if we’re lucky, or 400ad if we aren’t.

      Call me a doomer and downvote me or whatever. It doesn’t matter.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You’re getting too anxious about what every little thing costs the environment. Yes, you’re right, there’s no silver bullet that makes anything magically sustainable, but there also doesn’t have to be.

        Pay more attention to the overall environmental cost, or the change in environmental cost. Of course we’ll never get to zero, but it’s quite possible to get to a sustainable level. The big example is always an EV: sure, it costs the environment a little more to make an EV than an ICE car, but looking at overall costs, you’ve already made that up after only two typical years of driving on most places. And that will only get better as manufacturing gets more efficient and power production gets more green

        with a sliver of insubstantial wind and nuclear power

        Dude, come on. Looking at US electricity production, yes, natural gas is the biggest. But nuclear production is about the same as coal. And renewables are about the same as coal. And coal is dropping like a rock while most new electricity production is renewables. Nuclear and renewables together are pushing 40%. Despite short sightedness from some of our corporate politicians, it’s way more than a sliver

        • Fecundpossum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I fully expected all replies to miss the point. You can’t make more nuclear power without massive amounts of petroleum based energy and products.

          But, again, it doesn’t matter, and isn’t worth arguing about. People don’t get it because why would they want to get it? It sucks to get it.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            But so what? Yes, there are dependencies and initial costs to the environment. Petroleum based energy and products are integrated throughout our economy, effectively everything is dependent on fossil fuels. Everyone gets it.

            Building out things like nuclear power or EVs only effect the operations and only of those specific industries/products. It’s only a start but these are examples of great places to start, where we can make a significant and highly visible difference.

            There’s a very long tail of things to work on, for the foreseeable future, but you can’t balk at less than perfect. Do one thing on the list. Then do the next

      • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’ve been led to believe all of this is a malthusian “die off” that the GOP will make happen one way (ruining the earth to maintain its special privilege) or another (bringing about some kind of holy war). Stop it.