[deleted] t1_j07wxe3 wrote
[removed]
KindChange3300 t1_j083gyn wrote
Perhaps another way to explain your position is this: if we really needed to, we could literally create oil out of thin air and energy; that is, use CO2 and water in endothermic reactions.
The question is - are there cheaper, safer and more convenient alternatives to either extract ing or creating the hydrocarbons we want for energy storage and transportation?
BelovedOmegaMan t1_j08mifr wrote
Not just that, but most plastics can be returned back to crude oil by the pyrolosis process-it's just that it's expensive to do so. There's billions of gallons of oil out there in landfills, etc. in the form of long-chain hydrocarbons called plastic. If a nation wanted to, say, nationalize turning plastics back into oil, it could absolutely be done-it's just that there's no reason to do so on a large scale. Yet.
Jamie1897 t1_j08rnlp wrote
The reason we don't do it is because it doesn't currently make economic sense. The unsubsidized price is related to its energy intensity, so it likely doesn't make energy sense to do it. It does, however, make lots of sense to incinerate municipal solid waste in waste-to-energy plants and recover the energy as electricity and steam for space-heating and cooling.
BelovedOmegaMan t1_j08ueaa wrote
>The reason we don't do it is because it doesn't currently make economic sense.
Yes, that's what I said, thank you.
[deleted] t1_j097ld2 wrote
[removed]
Jamie1897 t1_j08ntx6 wrote
No, transportation and mobile industrial equipment are why oil, compared to coal or natural gas, is uniquely valuable. There is no replacement for it, especially in heavy transportation, freight, aviation, maritime, and mobile industrial equipment.
KindChange3300 t1_j08wuhk wrote
Given the current state of technology, yes. But we must, for example, not allow an environment that sabotages potentially disruptive innovation.
What if, for example, portable fusion reactors become financially viable? Or other energy storage technologies emerge which make current generation battery technologies obsolete. For example, gyroscopic energy storage has been explored. What does happen, however is that industry-sponsored regulations and subsidies stifle development of other avenues in favor of incumbent interests.
abensfw t1_j08f4uk wrote
Using an economic argument to explain how a finite resource will magically last forever is always amusing.
dscottj t1_j08j53n wrote
Tell me you don't understand basic economics without saying you don't understand basic economics.
EBD510 t1_j0870av wrote
I don't think you're wrong - and I think your response highlights why OP's question is not the right one to be asking. More relevant is what the climate impacts of burning different amounts of these fuels will be. This is more likely to drive the relevant impacts and economics in the long term than some sort of hard availability constraint.
5J7XM33IXN4XCQI6B2BB t1_j09667e wrote
I love when economists join a conversation to remind everyone that the free market can solve any problem, even physical reality.
[deleted] t1_j08cw5s wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments