Support NeoGAF

[DunDunDunpachi]

The technologies used to extract energy from oil and natural gas are getting better every decade, and that includes emissions.

If humanity reached a point where cars, power-plants, etc could use fossil fuels while producing little to no emissions, would you still object to their use? Some countries (like the USA) are cutting emissions by using more fossil fuels but burning/producing them in a cleaner way with fewer total emissions. It's still not ideal, but it's an unusual step in the right direction. We already have net zero carbon emission power-plants that can burn natural gas.

This isn't to say we all would stop searching for alternative sources of energy. There are other valid reasons for opposing fossil fuels or certain parts of the industry (like flaws in the extraction process or unacceptable waterway pollution). This is an ideal, hypothetical question, after all.

A bonus question: if modern industries didn't worry about reducing emissions but instead "cleaned up" all their emissions via aggressive carbon sequestration, would that be acceptable instead of reducing the reliance on fossil fuels? I'm not talking about carbon-credits through shell companies. If we could objectively lower the total greenhouse levels each year worldwide via sequestration, would fossil fuel emissions remain a serious issue for you?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

get rid of pollution/environmental impact and you can use whatever you want.

 

[Moogle11]

Pollution/environmental harm is my only reason to wish we could get rid of them. That means also not having any environmental harm in obtaining the fuels, and not just zero emissions in using them. That's what makes it largely impossible to do safely as there's always harm in drilling, risks of spills from tanker ships, mountaintop removal for coal and so on even if we could find a way to have zero emissions when burning the refined fuels.

That said, it's not a huge cause for me or anything. They're still a necessary evil and I just try to limit my driving and energy use at least a tad, but certainly don't go minimalists there. I just try to be cognizant of it and not overly wasteful in my consumption.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Pollution/environmental harm is my only reason to wish we could get rid of them. That means also not having any environmental harm in obtaining the fuels, and not just zero emissions in using them. That's what makes it largely impossible to do safely as there's always harm in drilling, risks of spills from tanker ships, mountaintop removal for coal and so on even if we could find a way to have zero emissions when burning the refined fuels.

That said, it's not a huge cause for me or anything. They're still a necessary evil and I just try to limit my driving and energy use at least a tad, but certainly don't go minimalists there. I just try to be cognizant of it and not overly wasteful in my consumption.

I know it wasn't emphasized in the OP, but what if the use of fossil fuels was as a stopgap? i.e. would you accept 100 years of fracking in select areas and only using certain minimum standards as long as we could eliminate/mitigate any environmental damage?

 

[Moogle11]

I know it wasn't emphasized in the OP, but what if the use of fossil fuels was as a stopgap? i.e. would you accept 100 years of fracking in select areas and only using certain minimum standards as long as we could eliminate/mitigate any environmental damage?

Probably. Just depends on the extent of lasting damage over those 100 years and whether it could truly be mitigated.

But like I said, it’s not an issue I’m super passionate about and we just try to be cognizant of our footprint. Which is already smaller since we aren’t having kids. Which also is part of not being that passionate about it as we have no personal stake in the longterm future of the world. We just don’t want to be mindless, wasteful assholes.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

The means for gathering still finite resources such as fossil fuels pales in comparison to renewables. Let alone the destruction of habitats etc. Renewables all the way.

 

[V4skunk]

The manufacturing and disposal of lithium battery's is far more damaging to the planet than any fuel being burned in an engine.
C02 is also plant food.

 

[SpartanN92]

I would still use them if they emitted double the amount of emissions they do. It’s cheap. It’s reliable. Millions of people around the world would die if Fossil Fuels were to be eradicated today without a viable alternative in the same price range (it doesn’t exist yet).

 

[EverydayBeast]

Fossil Fuels are essential there's a whole lot of it and people put their lives on the line to get them, fuels shouldn't be a concern, yes people are looking to alternatives but enabling stopping production of fossil fuels is a weak argument.

 

[Thaedolus]

If we eliminated the downsides of an energy source would I still use it?

...yes?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

If we eliminated the downsides of an energy source would I still use it?

...yes?

Well... one of the main downsides. Other objections might remain. That's why I posed the question.

 

[Naibel]

I'm not against your premise, but I would still "oppose" fossil fuels because it's a finite ressource, and it makes us dependent on OPEC countries (especially here in Europe). Waging wars over it, spending billions in the process, oil embargo crises crashing our economies, no thanks. I prefer energy independence, even though renewables are FAR from perfect, and nuclear shouldn't be out of the question.

 

[Rentahamster]

There are other negative externalities to fossil fuels aside from the carbon output, such as the soot generation, the radiation, the dangers of extraction for both humans (coal mining accidents) and the environment (oil rig spills), as well as the national security dangers from funding terrorists.

It should be necessary only as long as it takes to establish a suitable replacement.

 

[-Arcadia-]

Yes. If I’m not pissing hippies off, what’s the point?

 

[Stilton Disco]

I would, purely because it's a non renewable resource that will eventually run out

There's so mamy more uses for it, that can't be done as well with other chemicals, that mean I will always see it as a waste to just set it on fire.

 

[Rentahamster]

Also, reliance on fossil fuels limits individual freedom since you are dependent on a supply chain of the fuel source itself. With something like solar, you are limited by the supply chain of panel manufacturing, but once you're past that, you can basically go off the grid anywhere that has enough sunlight.

You can set up and maintain a solar panel. You can chop and burn wood. You can't really pump your own oil and refine it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Also, reliance on fossil fuels limits individual freedom since you are dependent on a supply chain of the fuel source itself. With something like solar, you are limited by the supply chain of panel manufacturing, but once you're past that, you can basically go off the grid anywhere that has enough sunlight.

You can set up and maintain a solar panel. You can chop and burn wood. You can't really pump your own oil and refine it.

I'm all about self-sufficiency and being off the grid, if feasible. You can make your own natural gas via composting processes, and it has been done in plenty of situations, studies quite extensively. For example: farmers composting huge volumes of woodchips mixed with manure, would syphon the off-gassing into spare tractor tire tubes, and then syphon the gas for the stove inside the home. Biogas is a well-researched field of interest.

The power grid in particular is moving from crude oil to natural gas as a part of our efforts to reduce emissions. It's cheaper too since it's a waste product of fracking. Natural gas is also catching up with crude for chemical refinement, but the point is that we're already shifting our energy infrastructure from oil dependency to natural-gas dependency. The big hurdle is cars. Wouldn't be surprised if we saw a natural-gas powered car in the next 30 years, tbh. We're developing better versions of natural-gas technologies all the time. We could then pivot into biogas production which is renewable, well-understood, and easily available. The main obstacles would be doing it at scale but otherwise... There's your off the grid home-made energy source, if you so desire.

You can't fuel cars with natural gas nor biogas (yet). We still need oil. But our foot is on the stepping stone to move us away from oil permanently (at least as a primary energy/chemical source) and into natural gas. Yes, it would still be a fossil fuel. Moving into natural gas requires an infrastructure overhaul to shore up some weaknesses. Storage and long-distance transportation, especially. We just don't have the pipes, to put it bluntly. But once we figure out how to profitably power our country with natural gas, then we just have to figure out how to do it with biogas instead of fossil. Boom. Self-sustainable. Renewable. And interfaces well with a self-sustaining agriculture overhaul, too.

There's your food + energy utopia.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm all about self-sufficiency and being off the grid, if feasible. You can make your own natural gas via composting processes, and it has been done in plenty of situations, studies quite extensively. For example: farmers composting huge volumes of woodchips mixed with manure, would syphon the off-gassing into spare tractor tire tubes, and then syphon the gas for the stove inside the home. Biogas is a well-researched field of interest.

The power grid in particular is moving from crude oil to natural gas as a part of our efforts to reduce emissions. It's cheaper too since it's a waste product of fracking. Natural gas is also catching up with crude for chemical refinement, but the point is that we're already shifting our energy infrastructure from oil dependency to natural-gas dependency. The big hurdle is cars. Wouldn't be surprised if we saw a natural-gas powered car in the next 30 years, tbh. We're developing better versions of natural-gas technologies all the time. We could then pivot into biogas production which is renewable, well-understood, and easily available. The main obstacles would be doing it at scale but otherwise... There's your off the grid home-made energy source, if you so desire.

You can't fuel cars with natural gas nor biogas (yet). We still need oil. But our foot is on the stepping stone to move us away from oil permanently (at least as a primary energy/chemical source) and into natural gas. Yes, it would still be a fossil fuel. Moving into natural gas requires an infrastructure overhaul to shore up some weaknesses. Storage and long-distance transportation, especially. We just don't have the pipes, to put it bluntly. But once we figure out how to profitably power our country with natural gas, then we just have to figure out how to do it with biogas instead of fossil. Boom. Self-sustainable. Renewable. And interfaces well with a self-sustaining agriculture overhaul, too.

There's your food + energy utopia.

I think it would probably be easier to generate electricity via biogas and then power an electric car than it would be to develop an ICE that accepts methane.

 

[ThatStupidLion]

yes, finite resource where greed is holding back developing more long lasting energy solutions

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think it would probably be easier to generate electricity via biogas and then power an electric car than it would be to develop an ICE that accepts methane.

Fair.

 

[Papa]

There are other negative externalities to fossil fuels aside from the carbon output, such as the soot generation, the radiation, the dangers of extraction for both humans (coal mining accidents) and the environment (oil rig spills), as well as the national security dangers from funding terrorists.

It should be necessary only as long as it takes to establish a suitable replacement.

The coal mining industry is actually one of the safest heavy industries, at least in Australia.

 

[Rentahamster]

The coal mining industry is actually one of the safest heavy industries, at least in Australia.

While mining is definitely safer than it used to be, I think it still has its risks relative to other forms of energy acquisition. Overall deaths might be down, but that might also be attributed to a decline of mining volume in general. Risk of respiratory disease is still a thing.

Mining Program: Occupational Safety and Health Risks | NIOSH | CDC

Over the last century, significant progress has been made in reducing the frequency of mining fatalities as shown in the figure below, which is the result of legislative, labor, corporate, research, and technological interventions.

www.cdc.gov

(the data is old, but shows historical risks)

MSHA: Mining deaths reach record low in 2019

Arlington, VA — Twenty-four miners died on the job in 2019, the lowest annual total ever recorded by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the agency announced Jan. 30.

www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com

This shows how lowered deaths is a function of lowered number of jobs

U.S. coal mining deaths surge in 2017 after hitting record low

Coal mining deaths surged in the U.S. in 2017, one year after they hit a record low.The nation’s coal mines recorded 15 deaths last year, including eight in West Virginia. Kentucky had two de…

www.chicagotribune.com

The number of coal mining fatalities was under 20 for the fourth straight year after reaching exactly 20 in 2011, 2012 and 2013. By comparison, in 1966, the mining industry counted 233 deaths. A century ago there were 2,226.

MSHA has attributed low numbers in previous years to far fewer coal mining jobs and tougher enforcement of mining safety rules.

Ultimately, in terms of human risk vs killowathours generated, this data is illuminating.

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

Coal is by far the biggest killer. Nuclear is the safest energy source.

www.forbes.com

Energy Source		Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average		100,000 (41% global electricity)
Coal – China		170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S.		10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil		36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas		4,000 (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass		24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop)		440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind		150 (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average		1,400 (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S.		5 (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average		90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Nuclear – U.S.		0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)

Granted, it takes into consideration emissions, which is the very variable that DunDunDunpachi is trying to take out of the equation for his thought experiment, so for those purposes, it's not that useful.

 

[DESTROYA]

I don’t oppose them now.

 

[TaySan]

Renewables for now and forever.

 

[V4skunk]

I'm not against your premise, but I would still "oppose" fossil fuels because it's a finite ressource, and it makes us dependent on OPEC countries (especially here in Europe). Waging wars over it, spending billions in the process, oil embargo crises crashing our economies, no thanks. I prefer energy independence, even though renewables are FAR from perfect, and nuclear shouldn't be out of the question.

It is far cheaper for Europe to import gas and petroleum.
When Europe goes fully green you will have almost zero manufacturing because the cost of energy will be through the roof.
To put things into perspective! China the most polluting nation in the world is currently completing around 15 new coal burning plants each month across the nation.
China currently has the cheapest costing energy in the world.

 

[Papa]

While mining is definitely safer than it used to be, I think it still has its risks relative to other forms of energy acquisition. Overall deaths might be down, but that might also be attributed to a decline of mining volume in general. Risk of respiratory disease is still a thing.

Mining Program: Occupational Safety and Health Risks | NIOSH | CDC

Over the last century, significant progress has been made in reducing the frequency of mining fatalities as shown in the figure below, which is the result of legislative, labor, corporate, research, and technological interventions.

www.cdc.gov

(the data is old, but shows historical risks)

MSHA: Mining deaths reach record low in 2019

Arlington, VA — Twenty-four miners died on the job in 2019, the lowest annual total ever recorded by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the agency announced Jan. 30.

www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com

This shows how lowered deaths is a function of lowered number of jobs

U.S. coal mining deaths surge in 2017 after hitting record low

Coal mining deaths surged in the U.S. in 2017, one year after they hit a record low.The nation’s coal mines recorded 15 deaths last year, including eight in West Virginia. Kentucky had two de…

www.chicagotribune.com

Ultimately, in terms of human risk vs killowathours generated, this data is illuminating.

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

Coal is by far the biggest killer. Nuclear is the safest energy source.

www.forbes.com

Energy Source		Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average		100,000 (41% global electricity)
Coal – China		170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S.		10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil		36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas		4,000 (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass		24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop)		440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind		150 (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average		1,400 (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S.		5 (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average		90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Nuclear – U.S.		0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)

Granted, it takes into consideration emissions, which is the very variable that DunDunDunpachi is trying to take out of the equation for his thought experiment, so for those purposes, it's not that useful.

Ya, it’s a topic I’m quite familiar with. I was rebutting your assertion about the dangers of extraction for humans. It’s far safer than most other heavy industries including logging, agriculture, etc. Hell, you’re more likely to be injured driving to a mine site than working at one. In Australia, anyway. Not interested in stats from China where there is little value for human life.

 

[I_D]

Causing less pollution would make them immeasurably more desirable, yes.

They are still finite resources, though, so the long-term gains would still require getting rid of them.

 

[triplestation]

idk

barbecues are awesome i don't think they'll ever end

barcebues are much more recreational than they are practical

an electric barbecue get da fuck outta hea

vehicle wise im on board with electric 100%

 

[LordKasual]

If there was no emission issue then there would be little reason to oppose them.

It's still a very foolish thing to bet humanity's future on, however, because it's definitely finite and will become depleted eventually anyway. Getting better solar and nuclear (fusion) is a much better bet.

One will outlast the Earth and the other is about as energy dense as physics will feasibly allow.


Fossil Fuels in the future should be saved for niche things like rockets or whatever, where it's almost impossible to get the same energy density without using fossil fuels. But even that could possibly be solved with better battery tech? I dunno.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

Sounds good to me

 

[RedVIper]

The means for gathering still finite resources such as fossil fuels pales in comparison to renewables. Let alone the destruction of habitats etc. Renewables all the way.

Solar panels and batteries are being built with finite resources as well.

Renewables reck habitats.

 

[pr0cs]

People who are opposed to fossil fuels don't really understand the process of getting them (in North America) or all the benefits they provide that are next to impossible to replace with other materials

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Solar panels and batteries are being built with finite resources as well.

Renewables reck habitats.

There's a large difference between a once off build (solar) and a continual cyclic need (fossil). Essentially you're comparing a startup phase vs an ongoing phase, it's not apples vs apples. Solar panels degrade, tech increases but overall fossil fuels aren't anywhere near as efficient as renewables long term.

Further you're not taking into account other sources of renewables e.g. wind, hydro, biomass etc. You're only looking at solar.

People who are opposed to fossil fuels don't really understand the process of getting them (in North America) or all the benefits they provide that are next to impossible to replace with other materials

There is a timescale to migrate away from fossil fuels to renewables, it's happening now and will take some decades/generations to hit saturation/maturation. For now fossil fuels are necessary but more so due to the supply chain and technology adoption by governments, commercial and residential. Massive investments in renewables will over take fossil fuels, no doubt, it's question of when not if.

 

[Grinchy]

I don't actually have a moral objection to using them at all, but at least for the long-term survival of our species, we do have to figure out some way to power things for the inevitable day that we've used up all the finite resources.

 

[TheGreatYosh]

I don't even agree with the name "fossil fuel".

 

[pr0cs]

There is a timescale to migrate away from fossil fuels

Sure but that eventuality won't happen in your or my lifetime. The fact remains that oil and gas are still the cheapest way to heat people's homes, certainly here in Canada anyway.
Hydrocarbons get a bad rep but we're tied to them for the foreseeable future, sadly here in Canada we'd prefer to just buy them from shitty countries that don't care about safety or the environment just so we can say that we are saving the planet, rather than produce them properly at home

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Sure but that eventuality won't happen in your or my lifetime. The fact remains that oil and gas are still the cheapest way to heat people's homes, certainly here in Canada anyway.
Hydrocarbons get a bad rep but we're tied to them for the foreseeable future, sadly here in Canada we'd prefer to just buy them from shitty countries that don't care about safety or the environment just so we can say that we are saving the planet, rather than produce them properly at home

We have a similar problem here, we export a fair amount of natural gas but rely on imported petroleum still, we also have plenty of usable land for solar farms or wind farms too. Hopefully one benefit from Covid is governments start to look in their own backyard/investments even if more expensive as we move forward. I hope/vote for it to occur within the second half of my lifetime. I'd like to see the dependence upon fossil fuels and the shithouse countries that control it dealt with before my kids are middle aged.

 

[TheSadRanger]

I think it would probably be easier to generate electricity via biogas and then power an electric car than it would be to develop an ICE that accepts methane.

What's up with the whole Tesla tower thing that generated electricity from the earth's ionosphere?

Obviously we got some world changing inventions from Nikola Tesla so I wonder why the conversation around this is so heated. Same thing with the whole aether theories.

 

[Papa]

Those suggesting renewables -- which ones do you recommend?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Those suggesting renewables -- which ones do you recommend?

Depends on the country/region and other factors e.g. hydro for natural water systems, solar for sunny areas etc. Generally a combination of them though, a basic order of success is:

1. solar
2. wind
3. hydroelectric
4. biomass
5. geothermal
6. tidal

There are already countries that run 100% entirely on renewables e.g. Iceland. Others very near that e.g. Germany produced enough renewable energy in one half of 2018 to power all their houses for 1 year. It's just a matter of government will and investment, with the caveat of localised environment(s).

 

[womfalcs3]

The manufacturing and disposal of lithium battery's is far more damaging to the planet than any fuel being burned in an engine.
C02 is also plant food.

Lithium is a scarce element, anyway. We need to utilize more abundant elements more efficiently, like carbon.

 

[Papa]

Depends on the country/region and other factors e.g. hydro for natural water systems, solar for sunny areas etc. Generally a combination of them though, a basic order of success is:

1. solar
2. wind
3. hydroelectric
4. biomass
5. geothermal
6. tidal

There are already countries that run 100% entirely on renewables e.g. Iceland. Others very near that e.g. Germany produced enough renewable energy in one half of 2018 to power all their houses for 1 year. It's just a matter of government will and investment, with the caveat of localised environment(s).

But do you think that would upscale to a country the size of India?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

But do you think that would upscale to a country the size of India?

Of course I do, I'll bet it will be a bit of surprise to know that India is already approx. 40% of their electrical energy needs from renewables. They're top 5 in the world for wind farms and have set tall order targets for the next few years as well. It's an unfair challenge for developing nations like China and India to skip what the western world has done with fossil fuels by comparison, hopefully they do far better than we do in recent decades. Check it out -

You also have to remember in China and India not all own cars, may use public transport exclusively or bike or walk and more than one family in a house is common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India

 

[V4skunk]

There's a large difference between a once off build (solar) and a continual cyclic need (fossil). Essentially you're comparing a startup phase vs an ongoing phase, it's not apples vs apples. Solar panels degrade, tech increases but overall fossil fuels aren't anywhere near as efficient as renewables long term.

Further you're not taking into account other sources of renewables e.g. wind, hydro, biomass etc. You're only looking at solar.



There is a timescale to migrate away from fossil fuels to renewables, it's happening now and will take some decades/generations to hit saturation/maturation. For now fossil fuels are necessary but more so due to the supply chain and technology adoption by governments, commercial and residential. Massive investments in renewables will over take fossil fuels, no doubt, it's question of when not if.

Tell that to the Chinese.
Renewables are not happening in Britain or USA.

 

[RedVIper]

There's a large difference between a once off build (solar) and a continual cyclic need (fossil). Essentially you're comparing a startup phase vs an ongoing phase, it's not apples vs apples. Solar panels degrade, tech increases but overall fossil fuels aren't anywhere near as efficient as renewables long term.

Further you're not taking into account other sources of renewables e.g. wind, hydro, biomass etc. You're only looking at solar.

They all require ultimately limited resources and they all destroy habitats. (Like seriously hydro power plants are awful in that department).

Solar panels are not the "once off build" that you're claiming they are.

 

[Super Mario]

Of course I do, I'll bet it will be a bit of surprise to know that India is already approx. 40% of their electrical energy needs from renewables. They're top 5 in the world for wind farms and have set tall order targets for the next few years as well. It's an unfair challenge for developing nations like China and India to skip what the western world has done with fossil fuels by comparison, hopefully they do far better than we do in recent decades. Check it out -

You also have to remember in China and India not all own cars, may use public transport exclusively or bike or walk and more than one family in a house is common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India

I wonder how many thousands of square miles of trees we will end up having to bulldoze to replace with solar panels to end global warming.

Ironic

 

[I_D]

I wonder how many thousands of square miles of trees we will end up having to bulldoze to replace with solar panels to end global warming.

Ironic

Basically none. Solar panels work best in areas where it's constantly sunny. Those are also the same areas where hardly anything grows.

How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?

Critics claim that there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. to power the country with solar. We dig through the numbers to reveal an answer that might surprise you.

www.freeingenergy.com

To assume that the only power needed is electric is a bit disingenuous though.
Unless the entire country made a MASSIVE change to the infrastructure all at once, we'd still need other forms of power to keep businesses/transportation/etc. running.

With a bit of planning, it could be done, though.