Synthetic Fuels Could Replace Entire U.S. Need for Crude Oil

[loomis86]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]" are almost identical to fuels refined from crude oil."vs." synthetic fuels are less harmful to the environment" and "cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent"If they are virtually identical then how can one be less harmful and cut emissions by 50%No matter what you put into a combustion engine, it is never going to be as efficient as an electric motor nor can even the most powerful V8 product the low end torque that an electric motor produces.You want great 0-60 times... go electric.And if you absolutely need a combustion engine, then feed it Hydrogen.BMW has shown that it can be done, and talk about a clean exhaust; no more suicides in the garage ![/citation]


Someone should prolly inform you that hydrogen *IS* synthetic fuel. It's also a bad idea. Sheesh.

 

[sacre]

They're trying to find an alternative where there is money to be made.

Why create a method that is renewable and extremely cheap? Money will be lost. LOTS of it. Think about it, you're the owner of a company that makes millions per DAY, then your buddy gives you a design that'll take your profits and cut them by 1/8th... no more Yacht, no more 5 mansions, no more private jet.. But hey people around the world will be happy.

This is why democracy fails, its about "ME" .. If I worked for my company that basically runs the world, I want my money no matter the cost, and i'll take out other businesses by any means to keep my profit flowing.

Democracy has pushed us far but now its starting to show its ugly face.

 

[falchard]

I actually like the Tesla Model S. Its very good and practical design for an electric car. The usage of many small batteries makes filling it up not take as long as other models. In California, you can actually have a trip in a Tesla Model S. Drive 150 to 300 miles, then have a nice 30 minute break and continue on. For a road-trip I think it can be very positive.

 

[Onihikage]

With the way Carbon nanotube production is pretty much set to explode in the next few years, and the incredible carbon and nanotube-based materials we've been able to come up with, I'm certain that the future is in renewable electricity and electric cars. We're not there yet, sure, but by the time oil runs out, we will have the technology at a level and price point to go without it entirely. No need for more of the ecological devastation caused by the mining of nonrenewable resources.

 

[BoredErica]

Isn't the depth and location of fracturing different than used by water wells? We have enough natural gas alone to cut off all need for oil period. (And then some.)

 

[NuclearShadow]

That fact that we suffered a oil crisis back in the 70's should have been reason enough for us to have by now have completely moved away from it. While we may not have known the effects on global temperatures we would have back then we did at-least understand that supply can and will continue to be a problem and a constant worry.

When our modern issue today is a financial economic reason vs a morality reason some like to point out that greed always wins in the end. But the fact is since we have had issues with oil when it comes to economic reasons such as shortages or instability in the region we get it from making it unreasonably costly. We really have a economic reason to switch and it would be insanely profitable.
We have both a economic and moral reason to make the switch now something no one in the past had before combined. We have no excuse to continue its usage.

 

[jj463rd]

[citation][nom]krogtheclown[/nom]Lets not forget what electric is produced by, that is mostly coal eletric plants. Electric cars are great and the future but we still have to make the electricity. Nuclear power is a must![/citation]

Depends on the region.My local utility gets 93% from hydroelectric sources and slightly less than 2% from Coal Power plants.The rest is supplied by Nuclear 4% and 1% from other various sources.

 

[balev]

[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]I'd rather we spend the money on renewables, rather than unsustainable and still polluting synthetics like this.[/citation]
Completely agreed.

 

[yannigr]

Christodoulos Floudas
Greek name detected!

 

[kyle382]

so, sounds like the drawbacks of any of the other alternative fuel sources lol. good article.

 

[blackdevilmt]

[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]The time required to create a synthetic fuel supply and distribution infrastructure would be about 30 to 40 years.Talk to me in 60 years when I'm dead and its still not out.[/citation]


It's such a joke, when we can run cars on water... remember that Italian engineer who converted a nissan from fuel to oil?

 

[Martin Maat]

This may have been an interesting idea some 40 years ago but now it's just stupid. Coal and natural gas are no better than oil. It is like making a case for prolonging the life of steam engines against combustion engines when those were taking over. Now electric engines are taking over combustion engines and power generation is going to be distributed rather than centralized, using solar and wind rather than fossil fuels. This is progress in every conceivable way, not just growing independent from other countries but also from big business corporations.

And we now see some clinging to the past saying "Wait! We can make a better horse!" while the world is moving on to the next technology that benefits everyone but horse breeders.

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]waikano[/nom]Azraa there's a few problems with Electric cars the biggest being they don't go very far. Sure they are great for most commuters, but not for distance trips...this on the other hand http://www.hybridcars.com/news/tri [...] 50490.htmlGoes 2000 miles between fill-ups well as long as you are cruising around 70mph.[/citation]

Tesla's model S will be able to recharge over 150 miles of range within an hour with their fast charger, Nissan Leaf charges from 0-80% SOC in 26 minutes with level 3 charging.

 

[Mathos]

You know what, some people here need to get educated about the matter before they post ignorant comments.

@a bad day.... Any biomass, is the answer to none food thing. They take the biomass, and convert it to methanol, or ethanol, which becomes part of the Syn gas process. That could be food waste that would of normally ended up in a landfill, Ethanol/Methanol processed from Hemp Stalks, etc.

About the Coal thing. Coal depending on the type, is almost Pure carbon. Where as Oil has a lot of impurities, toxic things such as Sulfur, which passes through refining into fuels. Or high amounts of Nitrogen. When combusted, this produces NOx, and Sulfur dioxide, along with carbon dioxide. Sorry, can't figure out how to use the notation things right now.

The natural Gas they are using is Butane, more specifically the type used for home heating in some areas. Though Methane can be used, and in fact would likely be better harvested for that purpose rather than letting it go into the atmosphere like we do now from landfills.

And from my reading it's economically the same as oil at around the 50-100$ per barrel range.

 

[madjimms]

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Two issues:The first issue is that renewable energy is heavily politicized. Some of the companies that Obama's administration heavily invested in caused some major controversy when they went bankrupt.The second issue is that there's a relatively poor demand. Most housing developers/contractors have no interest because solar panel installation increases the prices of homes. In one county where the council was planning on passing a bill to require mandatory fire sprinkler systems for all residential houses, the contractors protested against it.Some homeowners, like my parents, see no need because it would take a decade for the solar panel installation's cost to be recovered, and by that time, they would've moved out of the house.[/citation]
I'm pretty sure the reason the those companies went belly up is because stockholders got mad & dumped furiously.

 

[madjimms]

[citation][nom]blackdevilmt[/nom]It's such a joke, when we can run cars on water... remember that Italian engineer who converted a nissan from fuel to oil?[/citation]
It takes more energy to split water than you get back, Its NOT a good choice.

 

[serendipiti]

Could be good to know which proportions get used in the process (80% non-food crops (????) - 10 % coal - 10 % natural gas (???))
Because changing your needs for oil by needs for coal and natural gas does not solve the problem...
There are also other ways of getting it through cereal and alga, and that would be a better way (because it's renewable)
But, well, not just to scare, but the oil is over: its a matter of 10 years to drain it, and then...

thththththat's all folks !!!
(and it's cinical to be comic in such a tragedy: it's a sacrilege to end the reserves of crude burning it...)

 

[kellybean]

Yeah, stop using our food supply (corn) to make ethanol. It takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than what it gives back, shear stupidity and it's all political so that explains why it's still running. Food prices and meat has gone up allot because of it. Corn is feed to pigs and cows and is more to feed them because of using corn for fuel.

 

[Thom457]

What supporters of electric vehicles ignore is that both electric motors and their battery sources are just as mature as ICE. The Chevy Volt gets the same battery range in practical terms as the first automobiles which were powered by electric motors. The Chevy Volt is a $17,000 ICE Cruze combined with a Prius on steroids for an additional $24.000. The weak link in all mobile electric motor powered devices is the batteries and all our current and past battery technologies are based upon finite heavy metals which happen to be very heavy and become part of the load that the efficient electric motor must move around. The Tesla Roadster is based on the 2 seat Lotus Elise chassis and powered by a 750 lb battery pack. To get the Prius up to the range of the Roadster would require a 1500 lb battery pack. To get it up to the range of my 1989 Accord would require over 2000 lbs of batteries. I can get nearly 600 miles out of my Accord with 15.9 gallon gas tank which weights with fuel about 150 lbs and can be “recharged” in about 5 minutes time. Nothing currently available or even theorized is going to approach that with battery technology. Half my annual mileage is well beyond the maximum range of the Volt on batteries until ideal conditions. Even if such range could be approached in the next several decades you still have to put that KW into the batteries and there is simply no way practical to put the KW required into a battery using what is widely available for wattage from a residential circuit in anything less than a full 24 hours. Even commercial 440 circuits would take all night to charge the Tesla Roadster with the range of my Accord. Electric vehicles will remain limited to niche markets were high income people can afford both their electric commuter vehicles and a conventionally powered ICE that has the range and “recharge” time that makes it practical for mass use. Electric vehicles will never be practical on a mass scale until a practical battery source is developed and there is nothing on the horizon for the next several decades that is going to provide the means to power over 230,000,000 ICE vehicles that exist today. Before you even approach where the KW is going to charge a fleet of over 200 million vehicles on top of the current load on the grid electric vehicles have show shopping real world physics limitations and economics to overcome that no one can produce a working prototype for.
The problem is not money; it is the law of physics. Even with the inefficiencies of an ICE set up compared to an electric motor there is simply no way to store in any battery technology the energy of a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel in a comparable weight and volume of energy storage.

 

[jj463rd]

[citation][nom]Thom457[/nom]What supporters of electric vehicles ignore is that both electric motors and their battery sources are just as mature as ICE. The Chevy Volt gets the same battery range in practical terms as the first automobiles which were powered by electric motors. The Chevy Volt is a $17,000 ICE Cruze combined with a Prius on steroids for an additional $24.000. The weak link in all mobile electric motor powered devices is the batteries and all our current and past battery technologies are based upon finite heavy metals which happen to be very heavy and become part of the load that the efficient electric motor must move around. The Tesla Roadster is based on the 2 seat Lotus Elise chassis and powered by a 750 lb battery pack. To get the Prius up to the range of the Roadster would require a 1500 lb battery pack. To get it up to the range of my 1989 Accord would require over 2000 lbs of batteries. I can get nearly 600 miles out of my Accord with 15.9 gallon gas tank which weights with fuel about 150 lbs and can be “recharged” in about 5 minutes time. Nothing currently available or even theorized is going to approach that with battery technology. Half my annual mileage is well beyond the maximum range of the Volt on batteries until ideal conditions. Even if such range could be approached in the next several decades you still have to put that KW into the batteries and there is simply no way practical to put the KW required into a battery using what is widely available for wattage from a residential circuit in anything less than a full 24 hours. Even commercial 440 circuits would take all night to charge the Tesla Roadster with the range of my Accord. Electric vehicles will remain limited to niche markets were high income people can afford both their electric commuter vehicles and a conventionally powered ICE that has the range and “recharge” time that makes it practical for mass use. Electric vehicles will never be practical on a mass scale until a practical battery source is developed and there is nothing on the horizon for the next several decades that is going to provide the means to power over 230,000,000 ICE vehicles that exist today. Before you even approach where the KW is going to charge a fleet of over 200 million vehicles on top of the current load on the grid electric vehicles have show shopping real world physics limitations and economics to overcome that no one can produce a working prototype for. The problem is not money; it is the law of physics. Even with the inefficiencies of an ICE set up compared to an electric motor there is simply no way to store in any battery technology the energy of a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel in a comparable weight and volume of energy storage.[/citation]

The energy storage density problem with electric vehicles can be circumvented with Wireless Powered Highways.With a lowering of vehicle mass (very easy using much lighter composite materials) it becomes more practical for passenger vehicles.

Video "When the road charges your electric car"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfUEx4VwyqM&feature=plcp

IBM is also coming out with a Lithium Air battery prototype next year which will have a substantially higher energy storage density for electric vehicles with much longer ranges.

Video "IBM Battery 500: A look inside a lithium-air battery"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pMFLpiqPAc&feature=plcp

 

[kitekrazy1963]

Leave the alternatives to the free market and keep government influence out of it.

 

[lindethier]

[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]Depends on the region.My local utility gets 93% from hydroelectric sources and slightly less than 2% from Coal Power plants.The rest is supplied by Nuclear 4% and 1% from other various sources.[/citation]

That is very similar to my region, with upwards of 89% of my electricity I use coming from hydroelectric power, and the rest being provided by nuclear or wind power. I love having some of the cheapest energy rates in the country and would love to see more dams and nuclear power plants and even solar or wind power generating facilities constructed instead of using oil and coal.

The problem is that the environmentalists in my area seem to hate all forms of energy production, regardless if it is renewable or not. They hate the dams because of the effect it can have on the local salmon population and they hate wind power and solar power because they are unsightly and detract from the natural beauty of the local scenery (I live in the middle of the desert, so I'm not sure exactly what scenery they are looking at).

 

[acadia11]

So the process still requires the use of non-renewable fossil fuels. When are these people going to get it!!!!! Start going to renewable resource based energy. Stop this already.

 

[soundping]

Earths core makes enough heat to steam power us 100,000 years.

 

[The_Trutherizer]

Good speed America