Excessive use of fossil fuels has recently (over the last 30 years) revealed itself as a major problem that could have catastrophic consequences, There are many paths to address this problem. The path most traveled recently is to replace fossil fuels with "renewable" fuels like wind, solar or even nuclear. There has also been a large push towards "biofuels" which to many means turning plants that could be food into fuel instead. There are obvious pros and cons with that approach.
Fossil fuels will probably still be around for a long time because no technology has stepped up as a clear successor of fossil fuels. Solar, Wind and Nuclear power have been the leading contenders ease the transition from fossil fuel to for a while now but they do not yet appear to be up to the task. What technologies do you believe are capable of replacing fossil fuels and providing a sustainable future for our planet.?
Dear Rick Manner:
Advanced research on alternative and green energy is increasing at a faster rate now, but so is climate change.
Mohamed, most reasonable projections like this one:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=12251#
Predict the most likely resource to provide this amount of additional power is still coal - along with all of the potential environmental problems. Nuclear appears to be the most likely “clean” fuel solution to provide this amount of additional power generation. I believe wind and tidal energy currently appear to be in a better position than solar to provide a portion of the new energy production that will be required but I think we will still need to burn a lot more coal if there isn't a major breakthrough.
It is well known that the minerals will run out for some time. For what time - we do not know. Especially that new sources are being discovered. Consumption of them has some influence on what is happening on Earth. What - we do not know so much. Just remember what happened when one volcano erupted in Iceland. Biofuels? It is really an extension the part of the carbon cycle in nature. Probably something will help - but new industrial installations are needed. And these must be built. That's for the beginning of the discussion. Regards,
Miroslaw, Thank you for your comments. I believe until recently that bridge to the future was assumed to be Nuclear Fission followed by Nuclear Fusion but both of these technologies have stumbled significantly. We will probably continue burning coal until a new technology emerges that is capable of replacing fossil fuels and we will probably suffer significant ecological consequenses as a result.
Rick, In Poland, for a long time we will use coal as the basic source of energy. The influential lobbies and politics are decisive here. Sometimes someone will mention coal gasification and liquefaction. But usually it ends with extensive reports. As for thermonuclear energy, the future will show whether mankind will be able to use it in a controlled way. Regards,
Miroslaw, Yes coal has been the primary source of electric power production in most places for a very long time while oil has been the primary source for transportation fuels. It will probably remain that way for a while. South Africa was once isolated but with abundant coal and little oil developed coal to liquids technology to produce transportation fuels but that is not the norm.
Rick, I agree. It is crude oil (in Poland in the ratio of 1 to 4 to coal) and liquid fuels and various other chemicals produced on its basis. There is natural gas used as a source of energy or a raw material for the production of various chemical compounds. And all this is either burned or processed mainly into plastics. There are also, how you wrote, renewable energy sources. However, this "renewability" is associated with previous, very expensive investments. And how nature will manage it all - no one knows. Arctic and Antarctic ice melts. Maybe the influence of CO2 and CH4 and maybe some temperature fluctuation - no one knows either. Too short time for reliable findings. Regards,
Rick, When it comes to liquefaction of coal (direct or indirect), South Africa is indeed the leader. And this is not only the way to obtain liquid fuels, but also electricity. Only what would happen with conventional power plants. Regards,
If the future vision is no tailpipe emissions transportation fuels will have to be 100% H2 or electric. I don’t think that is feasible for at least the next 20 years -probably longer.
The Chinese have determined that building Methanol plants in the US and shipping Methanol to China is a better route than importing LNG. They still import a lot of LNG but they have slowed the growth by building methanol plants in the US and importing Methanol instead of LNG
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30072
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-04/05/content_28794131.htm
https://www.fuelfreedom.org/the-u-s-and-china-on-methanol-two-roads-converge/
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-09/01/c_137434632.htm
I still believe on the ability of solar energy to replace fossil fuels in the future. If solar energy is not up to the task today, well, this is because scientists are still working on the technologies that improve the efficiency of solar cells (certainly not the silicon-based technologies), and consequently improve the power output that matches the power output of fossil fuels. Nuclear, could be a candidate, however, we need to work hard on the safety issue of such source, current technologies are not providing evidence of 100% safety, not yet! with my due respect all other renewable sources of energy.
Countries are growing their renewable energy penetration share each year. Norway takes the lead and many European countries are on the track. Today’s big problem is not lack of energy from renewables to replace the traditional fossil fuel. Electrical energy dicipates or lost unless we use it at its production in real time. As there could be excess energy production from renewables due to load mismatch, the concept of storing it to use back when needed it the most is very crucia. We can store energy as water pumping, hydrogen, heat and battery. Currently research are trying to find out ways to improve Battery and hydrogen storage technology. Fuel cell electric cars are on the market. UK has almost up to 80 refuelling stations for FCEV. When the technology economy improves along with other technologies, by 2035 to 2040, all vehicles become Electricalmly operated ones which either run by fuel cell or battery or hybrid of the two. Until then, coal and natural gas will continue to supply the energy demand to fill the gap. Concerning sustainability, hydrogen gas is the most abundant material in the universe (70.6%) though it is only 0.15% in the air here on Earth. But as water is abundant on the earth, we can easily get hydrogen by electrolysis with only a by product of oxygen. In that case, hydrogen storage technology along with renewable energy technology will supply 100% pure environmental friendly energy demand by 2050.
Rick, I had no idea that the Chinese were producing methanol in US and transporting them to China - where I guess they use steam reforming to get H2. Clever. If, however, they produce methanol with CO2, then US will get rid of its surplus. If so, it's also clever. ....... Because China does not respect the agreement from Tokyo. Regards,
Renewables...
German renewables share jumps to 38% for 2018, nearly catches coal
Source: https://reneweconomy.com.au/german-renewables-share-jumps-to-38-for-2018-nearly-catches-coal-18432/
Thank you Samuel Tesema Lakew,
Yes we can get H2 from electrolysis of water but I would not yet classify it as "easy" because most of the world's electricity is still produced by burning coal. I think we need to find a way to get ourselves into a situation where coal fired generation is no longer the marginal supply mechanism for producing electricity. In the short term we may be able to capture some of the CO2 from coal fired power plants and sequester it for a while but that is very expensive and the ability to store CO2 in underground caverns has limits that we can easily exceed if we do not find an alternative to coal.
Some places have achieved 100% renewable energy (Iceland probably is the best example) but for most of the world incremental electric power generation comes from burning coal, and as a result using electrolysis to produce electricity will usually result in additional burning of coal
Dear Rick, Electrolysis should be done in a distributed way wherever the renewables are, we just need waters and the electricity supply once we have the integrated hydrogen refuelling stations. Imagine, by 2030, all the vehicles use fuel cell and no more petrol burning...that is huge, don’t you think? The answer is the technology of efficiency of both from the generation and consumption side. We are one step closer each year. Now it is common to see hybrid and electric vehicles on the road, fuel cell forklifts in industries. But as I mentioned earlier, this whole thing doesn’t come overnight but with gradual increasing in renewable penetration finally leads to 100%.
Samuel, I think burning Petrol (AKA Gasoline) is better than burning coal but neither is the best solution. If the only choice is burn Petrol or burn coal I would chose usually to burn the Petrol. But we really need to try hard to create some better choices.
The sun is source of all energies (coal is only stored energy of sun)
Srete Nikolovski
Thank you for your reply, Yes energy that originated from the Sun is stored in many forms on earth and coal is the most abundant fossil fuel. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we should burn all of that coal to satisfy our need for energy. We need to use our resources wisely considering both the near term and long term consequences of using up the resource and polluting the environment.
We still need to find a reasonable path forward to a sustainable future. Many are looking for this path but I don’t think anybody has found it yet.
Srete, I agree we need more renewables and we probably also need more Nuclear, a more focused energy conservation effort and a tax structure that puts a higher cost on the dirtier sources of energy without disproportionately impacting the poor
Rick, Based on what you have written elsewhere, it seems that my assumptions about the use of methanol by Chinese people were untrue. I have a question, however, whether in installations in the US, except hydrogen, CO2, a mixture of CO and CO2, or only CO are used to obtain methanol? Regards,
Srete,
In places like India and China and much or the third world the standard of living should continue to grow and as a result, energy use will likely increase significantly, this will likely lead to a significant increase in the demand for energy. MIT took a good look at this an initiative led by Ernst Moniz in 2003 and updated in 2009 that they continue to update here:
http://energy.mit.edu/research-type/future-of/
I have also found that all of the major oil companies and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)
https://www.eia.gov/
are also good sources of information about projected Energy demand in the US and around the world.
Rick Manner, you are right about coal, it has more emission than petrol. I also support the idea we need to continue to use nuclear power until we develop more renewable penetration. I say it again, don't underestimate the idea of efficiency. for instance transmission efficiency (line loss) is more 30 or 40 % in many developing countries.
Srete Nikolovski, you are right, the sun is the main source of all the energy and this is because the 76.7 % of it is hydrogen (and helium). I believe we are on the right track, a lot will happen in 20 years. We need to work on efficiency as well as adding more renewables.
Both India and China are heavily investing in renewables (wind and solar) but also nuclear as their energy demand in the decennia to come will be huge.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cnpc-outlook/chinas-energy-demand-to-peak-in-2040-as-transportation-demand-grows-cnpc-idUSKCN1AW0DF
Just one of the many sources if you use Google.
That is mainly for transportation
Another article probably outdated already from 2011
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1876610211045115/1-s2.0-S1876610211045115-main.pdf?_tid=3ffa5c49-f640-4cca-a856-082b449eb584&acdnat=1541580865_408453090f53358b362092ed0c8f1af6
and a mor updated look at tChina's energy useage
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1674927817300953?token=DDCA837D5AA9E0EE3ABFE923064C679DC8C21A05D6D72F9C3A255EF68024D782BAF1AFBFA9DC2A9EBE6EB59C38119132
Plans concerning nuclear builds:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx
Anyway to reach the goal to limit the 2 degree level towards the end of this century (still more than 80 y to go), 90% of the known resources of fossil fuel should stay where they are.
To cope with the energy needs of the world only the most efficient energy supplies like nuclear fission and fusion are likely to produce the amount without too much CO2 emission in the future. Of course renewables sould be added to the mix but no fossil fuels any more as those products are also used for many other products (e.g. plastics) around you.
Dwight Hoxie, I don't care much for most politicians either I can't support burning them as fuel but maybe we could put all of the hot air and other byproducts they produce to good use.
Very good idea. Burning them not only would add more CO2 to the atmosphere it also would create a terrible stench.
Renewables increasingly central to total energy consumption growth
The share of renewables in meeting global energy demand is expected to grow by one-fifth in the next five years to reach 12.4% in 2023.
Renewables will have the fastest growth in the electricity sector, providing almost 30% of power demand in 2023, up from 24% in 2017. During this period, renewables are forecast to meet more than 70% of global electricity generation growth, led by solar PV and followed by wind, hydropower, and bioenergy. Hydropower remains the largest renewable source, meeting 16% of global electricity demand by 2023, followed by wind (6%), solar PV (4%), and bioenergy (3%).
While growing more slowly than the power sector, the heat sector – which includes heating for buildings or industry – will account for the biggest overall share of renewables in meeting energy demand in 2023. Renewable heat consumption is expected to increase by 20% over the forecast period to reach a share of 12% of the heating sector demand by 2023. However, a modest increase in the share of renewable heat is foreseen, as robust growth in total heat demand is expected to result from continuous economic and population growth.
Source: https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=buffer958cd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Wind and solar energy have been helpful for the past ten years in minimizing the energy crisis in Ghana, especially in the local communities.
UK reaches major decarbonisation ‘milestone’ as renewables capacity leapfrogs fossil fuels
The UK has reached a “major milestone” in its decarbonisation of the power sector, having witnessed renewables capacity exceed that of fossil fuel generation.
The statistic has been reported by Drax’s latest quarterly Electric Insights for Q3 2018. Figures compiled by Imperial College London’s Dr Iain Staffell placed renewables generation capacity at 41.9GW, with fossil fuels having slumped to 41.2GW.
Such a moment had been looming for some time, triggered by significant deployment of renewables – particularly wind and solar – and the retirement of fossil fuel generators. Staffell writes that more than 40% of the UK’s peak fossil fuel capacity have now retired, effectively one-quarter of which having done so in the past year.
Meanwhile, the country’s thirst for renewable generation has even outstripped that of the ‘dash for gas’ in the 1990s.
At its most prevalent, around 2.4GW of gas-powered generators was being built each year. But since the turn of the decade, an average of 3.8GW of renewable capacity has been built each year.
Wind and solar have, predictably, been the two most prevalent technologies. Combined, onshore and offshore wind capacity “smashed through” the 20GW barrier in September, while the UK now has more than 13GW of solar PV capacity at its disposal.
Source: https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/uk-reaches-major-decarbonisation-milestone-as-renewables-capacity-leapfrogs-fossil-fuels
We can use solar/wind/hydro/geothermal to generate electricity for general use, cars and some trucks. To make that work we need a grid that can better deal with distances etc.
For airliners we will need to create "solar fuels", liquid fuels created from hydrogen and carbon.
We are a long way away from having enough renewable fuel available to significantly impact the growth of fossil fuels in the power and transportation fuels markets.
Currently about 80% of the US energy production is oil, Coal and Natural gas and about 10% is nuclear. That only leaves 10% “renewables” and most of these “renewables”:Biomass and Hydroelectric aren’t likely to grow significantly.
Nuclear, wind, solar, and tidal energy will all need to grow significantly in order to reduce the growth of fossil fuel use. I believe we need one or more of these technologies, or perhaps a few that I haven’t mentioned to emerge and experience significant growth to reduce the risk of a climate change catastrophes.
Unfortunately most of the rest of the world is actually even more dependent than the US on coal for their energy growth. But at least they are much better at energy conservation than we are. We really need a breakthrough technology (or 2) to emerge to create a pathway to a sustainable future.
Biomass pyrolysis may produce biofuel alternatives to fossil fuels. More important, pyrolysis produce a wide range of chemicals which can substitue most petrochemicals produced from fossil fuels. This illustrated in the below mentioned review article.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325803601_Biomass_pyrolysis_past_present_and_future?_sg=PojrFSXhlJxWBTI6r8TfAdgG6muZ67R2Hzx33wr3ItLoE1zyNIpb_AP8rHz79RM7jLZV9tjynsT_qbw-dyiR0zlBLsY0lelV8e_3bBKX.P9aYnZ_jWIR4fuN0EEcOknTr9kscU9WsOxrsTMHkhot3wZMQOGoPop0eFYv-WmOCgiY-TM3BBy01JFR3UcEH8w
Tamer YA Fahmy
Thank you for your comment I don’t think anybody has figured out how to produce enough renewable biomass to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But a lot of very smart people are working on it so there is still hope.
Dear Rick
Many thanks for your reply. A lot of research is done on converting biomass wates into energy and other useful products such as paper and board as significant in the 2 reviews mentioned below. Biomass wastes are of great quantity and represnt hope. Happy new year.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315427845_Agricultural_Residues_Wastes_for_Manufacture_of_Paper_Board_and_Miscellaneous_Products_Background_Overview_and_Future_Prospects?_sg=GAgSSLWWWSwF844x5a4ljCkzzixY_8DQYijFz1G-sNNsWlNOg3Vwe77Pn2dw0ocnOwi6cRmlJtyXN3GefZJwMxlyftHnNQFHQYAh_4y-.FITw5ARHw2QtRdAk_rcwK0grJLy2DRiPnGvRbGsrZiI8PyU2llgPLD9St-_ox3h-mqd-iszSlUVA888j7sYxOQ
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325803601_Biomass_pyrolysis_past_present_and_future?_sg=PojrFSXhlJxWBTI6r8TfAdgG6muZ67R2Hzx33wr3ItLoE1zyNIpb_AP8rHz79RM7jLZV9tjynsT_qbw-dyiR0zlBLsY0lelV8e_3bBKX.P9aYnZ_jWIR4fuN0EEcOknTr9kscU9WsOxrsTMHkhot3wZMQOGoPop0eFYv-WmOCgiY-TM3BBy01JFR3UcEH8w
Tamer YA Fahmy
Thank you for your reply. I agree that it is important to fully utilize as much biomass waste as possible to supply as much energy as possible. In some regions this may even be enough energy to eliminate fossil fuels. But I do not believe there is currently enough biomass available to significantly reduce global fossil fuels use. I think Biofuel are a part of the solutio but they can not be the complete solution.
There is Climate Change Conference in Katowice (Poland). The voice of Poland is: only coal. ..... No comment. Regards,
Thank you Miroslav. There are a lot of places like Poland that rely almost exclusively on Coal for their power generation needs. You probably also import petroleum products for transportation fuels needs. CO2 capture should be seriously considered at these locations. Unfortunately carbon capture and storage is very expensive.
80% of energy comes from coal and is not the best kind. 20 million tons of CO2 per year is emitted by the Turów power plant. But that's a small percentage compared to the whole world. Regards,
Sometimes I wonder when the huge energy accumulated in the interior of the earth will be used. The minimum part of it is used in the form of qeothermal waters. But it is a negligible amount in relation to all the energy produced by humanity. Regards,
Hi Miroslaw,
it is quite an investment to use geothermal energy in most countries. You need deep geological drillings (several 1000 meters) and also a distribution system. Here in the Flemish part of Belgium they are trying to put it into place. Deep geological drillings have been performed and now they are putting the distribution system into place. However it will take several years before normal households can connect to the net due to the high costs involved.
So not a easy solution.
Josch
Hi Franz-Josef, I know that it will not be possible in close future. However, I also know that the hydrotermal power plant produces the electricity in Iceland. The drop in the temperature of geothermal water on several dozen kilometers of the pipeline is 2 K. Big achievement. Regards, Mirosław
Chia-Lin Chang
Thank you for your answer. I agree that it is a circular problem. Most if not all of the potential replacement fuels require fossil fuels base products in order to be produced and distributed.
Dear Rick Manner:
You are perfectly correct, which is an indictment of the world's current reliance on fossil fuels.
Non-fossil fuels and green energy are slowly replacing fossil fuels.
Far too slowly.
Chia-Lin Chang
The problem is so great that it is difficult to envision an acceptable (e.g. don’t consider mass human extinction as an option) and viable path to reduce fossil fuel use to less than half of total energy use over the course of the next 50 years.
Dear Rick Manner:
There is substantial ongoing research on alternative fuels, such as has been mentioned above, including solar, wind, hydro, wave, thermal, bio-mass, and algae.
It is understood that much more needs to be done, and much faster.
@Chia-Lyn Chang
There has been substantial research in the area for at least 40 years . Progress is very slow
Dear Rick Manner:
Advanced research on alternative and green energy is increasing at a faster rate now, but so is climate change.
There are two major fronts. Electric Power Generation (still burning lots of dirty coal) and transportataion fuels (Auto Mileage still low becase of consumer love for Large SUVs an Trucks). There has not been enough progress on either of these fronts.
Dear Rick Manner,
What do you think about the nuclear source of energy replacing the fossil fuel in near future? This source of energy needs also fossil fuel?
Thank you
"Are gas hydrates a source of environmentally friendly energy?"
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gas-hydrates-source-environmentally-friendly.html
Susana Azevedo
I believe nuclear is a mostly missed opportunity to create a longer bridge to some sort of sustainable future (most likely solar based in my opinion).
Nuclear fission has some well known problems but it is probably the most likely near term replacement for fossil fuels.
Nuclear Fusion is the clean nuclear promise that has proven to be much more difficult than expected to develop into a realistic option. In my opinion it is the most likely medium term (25-50 years) solution.
In my opinion, Solar, Wind and Tidal are also likely medium to long term solutions.
No real long term (100+ years) solution has yet emerged to replace fossil fuels. But something has to - or we will be in a lot of trouble.
We are still waiting for a new technology to emerge as the primary energy source in the long term future. Perhaps something like the matter/anti-matter reactors the creators of Star Trek imagined. Or perhaps something nobody has yet imagined to be possible.
Chia-Lin Chang Actually gas hydrates are potentially a very serious environmental problem. The possibility that millions of tonnes of methane cul be released directly into the atmosphere as the oceans warm is very real.
The means of getting our basic needs such as nutritious food, clean water, comfortable clothing, and an environmentally sound shelter have consumed a lot of energy through research, innovation and creation. Perhaps we owe mother nature a debt of gratitude by reviewing how we're living by finding technology that enables us to sustain the things we basically require to last a bit longer.
Looking at the developed countries, one can see that the nuclear energy is the best alternative for the fossil fuels.
Reza Biria Nuclear would be the obvious choice if we could trust the operators to act responsibly for a very long time. We need a third party or government entity that will guarantee safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste.
We also need guarantees that nuclear power plant will not be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons.
Susana Azevedo
Lalit Bc
Reza Biria
Rodolfo Vega Candelario
Chia-Lin Chang
Thank you for bringing this discussion back to life. There have been very few responses to date and there were no responses for several months before you resurrected it.
Renewable energy like wind, biomass and solar energy will replace fossil fuel. Renewable energy will replace fossil fuels because they will be less expensive, as reliable, and as convenient as fossil fuels. The polls indicate that the latent market for renewables in already in place. The issue is not if, but when. The health of our planet requires that this transition take place as soon as possible. Government incentives could and should be used to accelerate this process.
I think we should start by requiring CO2 capture and sequestration for all coal fired power plants. Old mines may be a good candidate for locations to sequester the captured CO2.
We also need to maximize wind, tidal, solar and perhaps geothermal power production and make all power consumers significantly more efficient,
Once the incremental power production become relatively clean. We need to make significant transition to electric and other low emissions vehicles.
It is an extremely large task. I do not think it is possible to accomplish it in less than 30 years even achieving this in 50 years will be difficult.
.
alternative energy sources such as bio-fuels, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, or nuclear energy can meet energy demands better than finite fossil fuels such as oil and coal remains hotly debated.
It is not necessarily green energy that converts agricultural commodities such as sugar cane and corn into bio-fuels.
Shiva Darvishha I agree that Solar, geothermal and Nuclear are possible ways to reduce ghg emissions but using H2 as an energy source is a lot more difficult to justify.
Most H2 is produced via steam methane reforming of natural gas:
CH4 + H2O CO + 3H2 Plus heat (takes place inside furnace tubes at ~1500 F)
CO + H20 CO2 + H2
CH4 + 2H2O< => 4H2 + CO2 overall combined reaction
This reaction takes place inside a 40 ft tall furnace typically with around 100 (often much more) 4 in diameter highalloy steel tubes. They ae expencive to build and the heating value of the H2 produced is usually about 50-60% of the heating value of the CH4 used to produce it (as feed plus fuel).
The CO2 produced at H2 plants is only captured about 10% of the time and it is almost never sequestered (vented or sold to the carbonated beverage industry).
If we continue to operate this way using H2 as fuel will increase CO2 emissions by 50% or much more if electrolysis is used to produce the H2..
H2 with sequestering of CO2 s could possibly work as a sort term solution in some locations but it is not the answer we are hoping for.
Michael John McAleer You are correct it is difficult to justify turning food directly into fuel or converting farm production from food to fuels.
Rick Manner Thanks for your valuable information.
Actually, There are many ways to produce hydrogen using sunlight, including photobiological, photoelectrochemical, photovoltaic-driven electrolysis, and solar thermochemical processes.
Another common hydrogen production method takes water, and separates the molecule H2O into oxygen and hydrogen through a process called electrolysis. Electrolysis takes place in an electrolyzer, which functions much like a fuel cell in reverse—instead of using the energy of a hydrogen molecule, like a fuel cell does, an electrolyzer produces hydrogen from water molecules.
Biological processes can also produce hydrogen through biological reactions using microbes such as bacteria and microalgae. In these processes, microbes consume plant material and produce hydrogen gas.
Dear Rick Manner :
Thank you for the helpful information as to how harmful gas hydrates can be for the environment.
Shiva Darvishha
You are correct there are many ways to use sunlight to produce H2. However using electricity to produce H2 is not a very good idea when it could be used to reduce coal fired power plants instead,
The biological processes you mentioned are also very interesting but they are not ready to produce H2 on the same scale as Steam Reforming of methane and other hydrocarbons.
The total world energy demand is for about 400 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) annually. One ‘BTU’ is about the energy and heat generated by a match. Oil, coal and natural gas supply about 350 quadrillion BTUs. Oil provides most of this, around 41 percent of the world’s total energy supplies (164 quadrillion BTUs). Coal provides 24 percent (96 quadrillion BTUs), and natural gas provides the remaining 22 percent (88 quadrillion BTUs).
By the year 2020, world energy consumption is projected to increase by around 50 percent – an additional 207 quadrillion BTUs. Therefore, would not be able to meet this increasing demand .
Source: https://developmenteducation.ie/feature/the-energy-debate-renewable-energy-cannot-replace-fossil-fuels/
There is no doubt that the Renewables can replace fossil fuels. The emerging advanced technologies will support more and more harvesting of Renewables in the world.
Ibrahim Mohammed Awad Aung Ze Ya and Balqees Al-Musawi
Thank you for your comments. There is little doubt that renewables will be a large part of the solution to replace fossil fuels. Other solutions like nuclear and sequestering of CO2 will also likely be a significant part of the solution.
In the next few decades world economies will require hydrocarbon liquids from oil, coal, natural gas, heavy oil, oil sands, and enhanced oil recovery. Sugar cane ethanol is also practical, but volumes will be limited. Other biomass liquids are uncertain. Corn-ethanol is an energy & environmental loser, and cellulosic liquids are not yet practical."
Yes, a portfolio of alternative energy solutions can and must replace the use of fossil fuels around the globe. Each country has its own collection of assets such as geothermal, wind, hydro and solar to support its energy needs.
Priya Dharshana
Thank you for your response. What "alternate energy solutions" do you believe will be large enough to replace fossil fuels?
I think that the easiest way to kick-start the transition would be to replace coal with solar and wind power for electricity generation...
Nuclear energy is widely regarded as clean, but it is not necessarily renewable, unlike solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, and bio-ethanol generated from agricultural products (such as sugar cane in Brazil and Thailand, and corn in USA).
Algae, including seaweed (macroalgae), is a promising form of biomass for clean and renewable energy.
"Algal fuel, biofuel or oil is an alternative to liquid fossil fuels that uses algae as its source of energy-rich oils. Also, algae fuels are an alternative to commonly known biofuel sources, such as corn and sugarcane."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
What will replace fossil fuels?
For greener alternatives should be solar, wind, hydro etc. depending on each country's geographical landscape & resources (e.g. sunshine most of the year, windy condition, a lot of waterfalls, plenty of sugar cane & palm oil farms etc.). One of the more promising one for countries accessible to sea is getting solar power from sea / floating solar panels - see YouTube links below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9jYz5obMD4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrtNuuiE-To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGz1ir0A1zo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxjJo0dyDwg
The use of fossil fuel can be minimize by giving sufficient attention to the development of solar and electric charging batteries of very high capacities. In particular parallel and simultaneous use of such batteries may minimize the use of fossil fuels significantly.
I believe Nuclear fuel, and fuel sources based on Solar energy are two most promising alternatives in this regard.
Priya Dharshana Chia-Lin Chang Michael John McAleer Han Ping Fung Saad Javed Muhammad Ali Debopam Ghosh Hussien Al-Deeky
Thank you all for your valuable contributions to this thread!
Here is a relevant article I found about the subject:
https://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/08/top-eight-alternative-fuels/
1. Ethanol
An alcohol-based alternative fuel made by fermenting and distilling crops such as corn, barley or wheat. It can be blended with gasoline to increase octane levels and improve emissions quality. Positive: Materials are renewable. Negative: Ethanol subsidies have a negative impact on food prices and availability.
2. Natural Gas
Natural gas is an alternative fuel that burns clean and is already widely available to people in many countries through utilities that provide natural gas to homes and businesses. Positive: Cars and trucks with specially designed engines produce fewer harmful emissions than gasoline or diesel. Negative: Natural gas production creates methane, a greenhouse gas that is 21 times worse for global warming than CO2.
3. Electricity
Electricity can be used as a transportation alternative fuel for battery-powered electric and fuel-cell vehicles. Battery powered electric vehicles store power in batteries that are recharged by plugging the vehicle into a standard electrical source. Fuel-cell vehicles run on electricity that is produced through an electrochemical reaction that occurs when hydrogen and oxygen are combined. Positive: Electricity for transportation is highly efficient, and we already have an extensive electricity network. In the case of fuel cells, they produce electricity without combustion or pollution. Negative: Much electricity is generated today from coal or natural gas, leaving a bad carbon footprint. (Nonetheless, electric vehicles are still the greenest option around when it comes to cars.)
📷
4. Hydrogen
Hydrogen can be mixed with natural gas to create an alternative fuel for vehicles that use certain types of internal combustion engines. Hydrogen is also used in fuel-cell vehicles that run on electricity produced by the petrochemical reaction that occurs when hydrogen and oxygen are combined in the fuel “stack.” Positive: No bad emissions. Negative: Cost. And also the lack of fueling infrastructure and difficulty of putting it in place.
5. Propane
Propane—also called liquefied petroleum gas or LPG—is a byproduct of natural gas processing and crude oil refining. Already widely used as a fuel for cooking and heating, propane is also a popular alternative fuel for vehicles. Positive: Propane produces fewer emissions than gasoline, and there is also a highly developed infrastructure for propane transport, storage and distribution. Negative: Natural gas production creates methane, a greenhouse gas that is 21 times worse for global warming than CO2.
6. Biodiesel
Biodiesel is an alternative fuel based on vegetable oils or animal fats, even those recycled after restaurants have used them for cooking. Vehicle engines can be converted to burn biodiesel in its pure form, and biodiesel can also be blended with petroleum diesel and used in unmodified engines. Positive: Biodiesel is safe, biodegradable, reduces air pollutants associated with vehicle emissions, such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Negative: Limited production and distribution infrastructure.
7. Methanol
Methanol, also known as wood alcohol, can be used as an alternative fuel in flexible fuel vehicles that are designed to run on M85, a blend of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline, but automakers are no longer manufacturing methanol-powered vehicles. Positive: Methanol could become an important alternative fuel in the future as a source of the hydrogen needed to power fuel-cell vehicles. Negative: Automakers are no longer manufacturing methanol-powered vehicles.
8. P-Series Fuels
P-Series fuels are a blend of ethanol, natural gas liquids and methyltetrahydrofuran (MeTHF), a co-solvent derived from biomass. P-Series fuels are clear, high-octane alternative fuels that can be used in flexible fuel vehicles. Positive: P-Series fuels can be used alone or mixed with gasoline in any ratio by simply adding it to the tank. Negative: Manufacturers are not making flexible fuel vehicles.
Photo: horatioNailknot_Rob Elam
Source: Environmental About.com
📷Follow CleanTechnica on Google News. It will make you happy & help you live in peace for the rest of your life.
📷
Tags: Biodiesel, carbon footprint, Electricity, Ethanol, Hydrogen, lowering greenhouse gases, methanol, P-Series fuels, Propane, reduced emissions, reduced smog, sustainable fuels, Top Eight Alternative Fuels
About the Author
📷
Glenn Meyers is a writer, producer, and director. Meyers was editor and site director of Green Building Elements, a contributing writer for CleanTechnica, and is founder of Green Streets MediaTrain, a communications connection and eLearning hub. As an independent producer, he's been involved in the development, production and distribution of television and distance learning programs for both the education industry and corporate sector. He also is an avid gardener and loves sustainable innovation.
📷
- Badges
- Science topic