> In real world economics, biofuels are not energy; they are high-density liquid transport fuels. The economics make it clear: e.g., gasoline costs ten times as much as coal, per unit energy. You're paying for the chemistry, not the joules.
Somehow, this is hard to get through people's skulls. Liquid hydrocarbons are a really potent energy storage medium with fantastic economics. (Compare a metal tank to Li-ion battery.) So long as we have need of bulldozers and heavy equipment at sites outside of fully established infrastructure, like construction sites, we will have a good use for such fuels. It's not overall efficiency that's important here. It's efficiency in a mobile context.
> Farming machinery can be electric powered. Nitrogen fertilizer can be created from nuclear- or solar- powered hydrogen. And voilà, it is carbon-neutral.
This really bothers me, and it happens all the time. Of course everything in our current infrastructure has a carbon footprint!
A large amount of the "bulldozers and heavy equipment at sites outside of fully established infrastructure" are the giant machines used to pull oil and natural gas from remote locations (tar sands, arctic and offshore oil rigs) and transport them the large distances to places inside fully established infrastructure. The need for hydrocarbons is compounding.
Similarly with biofuels, even if we are to genetically engineer more efficient plants to grow fuel, it still must be grown in a remote location, processed, and transported to places with existing established infrastructure.
In comparison, most places where people need energy already have the electric infrastructure to support it. We should be using liquid fuels in cases where it is truly necessary, not just for the short distances and minor wants of most.
We are not disagreeing. My position is that liquid hydrocarbon fuel is always going to have a specialist niche. I also think the bulk of transportation should be electric, ultimately deriving power from the sun. There's no reason to be dogmatically absolutist about energy storage technology. I say we use what works in whatever context it works. This way, we're never stuck by the disadvantages of a particular technology.
Comments
> In real world economics, biofuels are not energy; they are high-density liquid transport fuels. The economics make it clear: e.g., gasoline costs ten times as much as coal, per unit energy. You're paying for the chemistry, not the joules.
Somehow, this is hard to get through people's skulls. Liquid hydrocarbons are a really potent energy storage medium with fantastic economics. (Compare a metal tank to Li-ion battery.) So long as we have need of bulldozers and heavy equipment at sites outside of fully established infrastructure, like construction sites, we will have a good use for such fuels. It's not overall efficiency that's important here. It's efficiency in a mobile context.
> Farming machinery can be electric powered. Nitrogen fertilizer can be created from nuclear- or solar- powered hydrogen. And voilà, it is carbon-neutral.
This really bothers me, and it happens all the time. Of course everything in our current infrastructure has a carbon footprint!
A large amount of the "bulldozers and heavy equipment at sites outside of fully established infrastructure" are the giant machines used to pull oil and natural gas from remote locations (tar sands, arctic and offshore oil rigs) and transport them the large distances to places inside fully established infrastructure. The need for hydrocarbons is compounding.
Similarly with biofuels, even if we are to genetically engineer more efficient plants to grow fuel, it still must be grown in a remote location, processed, and transported to places with existing established infrastructure.
In comparison, most places where people need energy already have the electric infrastructure to support it. We should be using liquid fuels in cases where it is truly necessary, not just for the short distances and minor wants of most.
We are not disagreeing. My position is that liquid hydrocarbon fuel is always going to have a specialist niche. I also think the bulk of transportation should be electric, ultimately deriving power from the sun. There's no reason to be dogmatically absolutist about energy storage technology. I say we use what works in whatever context it works. This way, we're never stuck by the disadvantages of a particular technology.