Sustainable Fuels

[theprestige]

I'm not exactly sure what geometry has to do with it. But we're talking about sustainable fuels replacing fossil fuels to save the environment. We also have been discussing reducing air traffic. Catsmate mentioned eliminating Ryanair Europe's most popular budget airline. In other words, reducing the travel of the masses.

Isn't simply eliminating the masses the next step?

Eliminating the better part of 8 billion people is the next step. This is the case regardless of your opinions about a tiny handful of super-rich, about their relationship to the global labor force, and about their motivations real or imagined for doing this or that.

Global energy consumption as a function of global population is relevant to the question of sustainable fuels. The nature and disposition of the super-rich isn't, in my opinion. It's not necessary to try to change my mind about this; all I ask is that you find someone else to talk to, if that's what you want to talk about.

---

Global population is not a class warfare issue. It's just a population issue. Meeting the energy needs of 8 billion people requires efficient energy storage. Unless your sustainable energy storage solution is as efficient as fossil fuels or uranium, you're looking at a mass die-off one way or another. Either billions of people die because sustainable fuels can't meet that level of energy consumption; or billions of people die because their unsustainable fuel runs out (the good news is that you might be able to keep the survivors alive with sustainables, once the post-peak-oil dieoff happens).

Uranium is actually quite sustainable, outside of deep time considerations.

 

[acbytesla]

Eliminating the better part of 8 billion people is the next step. This is the case regardless of your opinions about a tiny handful of super-rich, about their relationship to the global labor force, and about their motivations real or imagined for doing this or that.

Yes, it is. It is imagined. Weirdly, I have heard many in the country club suggest such solutions

Global energy consumption as a function of global population is relevant to the question of sustainable fuels. The nature and disposition of the super-rich isn't, in my opinion. It's not necessary to try to change my mind about this; all I ask is that you find someone else to talk to, if that's what you want to talk about.

I'm just joking. I am all in favor of finding alternatives to fossil fuels. I don't think those solutions should require major sacrifice because they will be unacceptable to specific individuals as well as the masses.

Global population is not a class warfare issue. It's just a population issue. Meeting the energy needs of 8 billion people requires efficient energy storage. Unless your sustainable energy storage solution is as efficient as fossil fuels or uranium, you're looking at a mass die-off one way or another. Either billions of people die because sustainable fuels can't meet that level of energy consumption; or billions of people die because their unsustainable fuel runs out (the good news is that you might be able to keep the survivors alive with sustainables, once the post-peak-oil dieoff happens).

I disagree. High population poor countries vs low population wealthy countries. If that isn't class warfare, I don't know what is. I see Putin and Trump creating a dystopian future. Putin is reducing the population of the largest country on earth by sending them off to war.

Uranium is actually quite sustainable, outside of deep time considerations.

Especially when typical nuclear reactors only use about half of the fissile material before it is replaced. I'm hopeful that eventually the technical hurdles of molten salt reactors, thorium and breeder reactors are solved.

I think resolving them is far more realistic than fusion.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The idea that having more high-grade low-CO2 energy is a solution to the predicament humanity finds itself in is missing the forest for the trees. Sure, climate change is the biggest problem we face now and in the foreseeable future, but driving it and every other environmental problem is the requirement for exponential economic growth, irrespective of the number of humans on the planet.

If we can't design a functioning economic system that doesn't require exponential growth then we're screwed. All technology does is buy us an ever shorter period of time before collapse.

 

[Brainster]

Exactly Don. And many on the Christian right believe in the rapture and none of this earthly stuff matters.

Telling people to do without is a fools errand. They might accept minor inconveniences, but the ask is seldom universal which makes it harder.

Many lifestyle decisions have been made on the basis of ready availability of air travel. Would I have moved 3000 miles or so from my hometown if I knew the only way of getting back to see my folks was 55+ (this was in the era of the double nickel) hours of driving? Not likely. A five to six hour flight? That's doable, although I admit I blanche a bit when I think of the fares I paid back in the 1980s and what they equate to today. In inflation unadjusted dollars I pay about the same maybe a bit more, but inflation-adjusted it's a lot cheaper.

 

[acbytesla]

Many lifestyle decisions have been made on the basis of ready availability of air travel. Would I have moved 3000 miles or so from my hometown if I knew the only way of getting back to see my folks was 55+ (this was in the era of the double nickel) hours of driving? Not likely. A five to six hour flight? That's doable, although I admit I blanche a bit when I think of the fares I paid back in the 1980s and what they equate to today. In inflation unadjusted dollars I pay about the same maybe a bit more, but inflation-adjusted it's a lot cheaper.

I get that. But I think that's kind of the point. Cheap fares allows people to make lifestyle choices that pollute.

I can fly round trip between Seattle and Chicago or New York for around $200. But those are major hubs.
Unfortunately, a round trip ticket to Sioux Falls and a 90 mile drive to Sioux City where my family lives is 3 times that.

It would cost me $300 to take the train to Chicago and $400 to $700 round trip to take the train to New York. I'd like to see the train become at least competitive in price. There are ways to do that. But air travel buys time. Unfortunately, it does pollute.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Rolfe]

Going back to the OP and the comments about Formula One, I noticed this article about a recent trial of an electric sports car.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/opinion/opinion-yangwang-u9s-293mph-v-max-madder-you-think

This is the sort of thing I was meaning. ICE racing cars have been developed for many decades and are pretty much at peak capability already. Electric cars are in their infancy by comparison. It's not going to happen overnight, but I could well envisage interest gradually transferring to that sector as capabilities improve and performance eclipses ICE. There will be dedicated petrolheads who resist of course, but then there are still steam engine rallies too.

I don't really know all that much about motor racing, but I think the perceived need for "sustainable" liquid fuels might well simply evaporate.

 

[The Don]

Meh, this is pretty silly in the context of air travel. Who travels more by plane? Lefties or righties? I know, it's all the republicans vacationing in Europe.

In my experience, it's people travelling short haul regularly whether internationally or not is irrelevant because flying is cheap and convenient.

 

[ahhell]

That would require people to compromise their lifestyle - anathema to many, especially those on the right.

I still say that statement is pretty silly. I don't see much evidence that a significant number of folks on the left or right is willing to compromise their lifestyle. And anecdotally, my conservative relations have a smaller carbon footprint than my progressive relations. It's actually kind of funny, my trumpy sister is basically of grid on solar panels. Not because she cares about global warming.

Something I learned in my youth, if you want folks to do the right thing, you have to make it easier to do than the wrong thing. That's just humanity regardless of their political leanings.

 

[The Don]

I still say that statement is pretty silly. I don't see much evidence that a significant number of folks on the left or right is willing to compromise their lifestyle. And anecdotally, my conservative relations have a smaller carbon footprint than my progressive relations. It's actually kind of funny, my trumpy sister is basically of grid on solar panels. Not because she cares about global warming.

Something I learned in my youth, if you want folks to do the right thing, you have to make it easier to do than the wrong thing. That's just humanity regardless of their political leanings.

It's the opposite with my friends. My left leaning ones have the solar panels, the smaller and or EV cars, have invested in reducing their energy use, are holidaying closer to home and so on.

My right leaning ones still have ICE vehicles (quite often large SUVs), aren't interested in investing in renewable energy (indeed are vehemently against wind turbines and solar farms), haven't even bothered in significant investment in upgrading their homes and still take several foreign holidays a year.

 

[acbytesla]

It's the opposite with my friends. My left leaning ones have the solar panels, the smaller and or EV cars, have invested in reducing their energy use, are holidaying closer to home and so on.

My right leaning ones still have ICE vehicles (quite often large SUVs), aren't interested in investing in renewable energy (indeed are vehemently against wind turbines and solar farms), haven't even bothered in significant investment in upgrading their homes and still take several foreign holidays a year.

I live among a lot of righties and that very much use to be the case. But I'm seeing a lot more of those gun toting righty red necks adding solar panels and buying EVs. E-bikes and E-motorcycles are becoming super popular.

 

[dirtywick]

these guys that smoked a million cigarettes love the e-bikes. there's a pretty big cross over between them and guys that love guns and trucks. solar panels for their campers and cottages up north on their hunting land, etc.

there's still not a great ev truck option though. personally i'm looking forward to the slate and gave them $50 to reserve one. probably buy it, i like they're small and simple and cheap and do everything i want. idk if i'd tow my boat with it, if i owned one which i don't, but is again describing the guys i'm talking about above.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Going back to the OP and the comments about Formula One, I noticed this article about a recent trial of an electric sports car.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/opinion/opinion-yangwang-u9s-293mph-v-max-madder-you-think

This is the sort of thing I was meaning. ICE racing cars have been developed for many decades and are pretty much at peak capability already. Electric cars are in their infancy by comparison. It's not going to happen overnight, but I could well envisage interest gradually transferring to that sector as capabilities improve and performance eclipses ICE. There will be dedicated petrolheads who resist of course, but then there are still steam engine rallies too.

I don't really know all that much about motor racing, but I think the perceived need for "sustainable" liquid fuels might well simply evaporate.

Cool article! Fast cars! Of course, that's straight line speed, not track racing.

Rolfe, if you did like racing, you'd love Formula E, the electric vehicle formula.

Formula E - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Formula E cars are the fastest regulated electric road-course racing cars in the world.

"While Formula E cars are the fastest electric race cars on a road course, they are not as fast as Formula 1 cars. Formula 1 cars have a higher top speed, reaching up to 375 km/h (233 mph). However, Formula E cars offer superior acceleration, going from 0-100 km/h in just 1.82 seconds, compared to Formula 1's 2.6 seconds." [Google AI]

Formula 3, Formula 2, Formula E, and Formula 1 are ALL working on the problem of sustainability in vehicles, and it's not an either/or situation with regards types of sustainable fuelling, it's a matter of "this, that, and the other please".

 

[acbytesla]

these guys that smoked a million cigarettes love the e-bikes. there's a pretty big cross over between them and guys that love guns and trucks. solar panels for their campers and cottages up north on their hunting land, etc.

there's still not a great ev truck option though. personally i'm looking forward to the slate and gave them $50 to reserve one. probably buy it, i like they're small and simple and cheap and do everything i want. idk if i'd tow my boat with it, if i owned one which i don't, but is again describing the guys i'm talking about above.

My neighbor has a pair of super fast mountain ebikes with his hunting rifles mounted on the side. They'll take a ride up the mountain and bag a deer

 

[dirtywick]

My neighbor has a pair of super fast mountain ebikes with his hunting rifles mounted on the side. They'll take a ride up the mountain and bag a deer

i was being a little facetious, but in reality i know at least 5 guys who love their e bikes because their lungs are too shot to ride a normal bike. they spent their lives smoking and drinking and hunting and fishing and just like being active outside and now they can’t do much. so these bikes are really nice for them.

 

[ahhell]

My neighbor has a pair of super fast mountain ebikes with his hunting rifles mounted on the side. They'll take a ride up the mountain and bag a deer

I really hope that is true. It's a very amusing picture in my head.

 

[acbytesla]

I really hope that is true. It's a very amusing picture in my head.

It's true. I'm not much into hunting. But I can see why the ebikes makes it easier

 

[theprestige]

It's true. I'm not much into hunting. But I can see why the ebikes makes it easier

I have concerns about motorizing, mechanizing, industrializing recreational hunting.

Or any hunting, really. But we've already normalized using firearms for recreational hunting, so maybe that ship has sailed.

 

[Rolfe]

Cool article! Fast cars! Of course, that's straight line speed, not track racing.

Rolfe, if you did like racing, you'd love Formula E, the electric vehicle formula.

Formula E - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Formula E cars are the fastest regulated electric road-course racing cars in the world.

"While Formula E cars are the fastest electric race cars on a road course, they are not as fast as Formula 1 cars. Formula 1 cars have a higher top speed, reaching up to 375 km/h (233 mph). However, Formula E cars offer superior acceleration, going from 0-100 km/h in just 1.82 seconds, compared to Formula 1's 2.6 seconds." [Google AI]

Formula 3, Formula 2, Formula E, and Formula 1 are ALL working on the problem of sustainability in vehicles, and it's not an either/or situation with regards types of sustainable fuelling, it's a matter of "this, that, and the other please".

As I said, EVs are still at a relatively early stage in development. Look at what Porsche are doing with the Taycan to see the direction of travel for the sort of handling you're thinking about. Also speed has nowhere near reached the limit of the possible as far as I can see. Looking at present-day EVs against present-day ICE racing cars is to completely miss the point.

Sure, it's not a question of one or the other. However as EV development in the racing field progresses, it's my prediction that gradually that's where the interest will mainly lie, with only a dying breed of dedicated petrolheads clinging to the ICE. So maybe it won't matter too much whether they can find a genuinely sustainable liquid fuel.

 

[Rolfe]

i was being a little facetious, but in reality i know at least 5 guys who love their e bikes because their lungs are too shot to ride a normal bike. they spent their lives smoking and drinking and hunting and fishing and just like being active outside and now they can’t do much. so these bikes are really nice for them.

There's nothing wrong with my lungs, but I'm over 70, and even when I wasn't, hills could be an absolute bugger. Here we're limited to a 250-watt motor, but even with that much it's an absolute game-changer. I'm just back from a week of stuff I probably would never have gone near on my other bike. (Holland was my idea of a good place for a cycling holiday.)