Synthetic Fuels Could Replace Entire U.S. Need for Crude Oil
Synthetic fuels may become an interesting out of our dire need for more crude oil to power our vehicles.
Scientists at Princeton University found that a combination of coal, natural gas and non-food crops could form a synthetic replacement for today's gasoline. The scientists said that it could replace virtually our entire need for crude oil and make the United States independent for oil imports. They also said that synthetic fuels "could be used directly in automobile engines and are almost identical to fuels refined from crude oil."
The news gets even better as synthetic fuels are less harmful to the environment and would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, the researchers estimate. Of course, there are downsides as well. One of them is the time frame of implementation: The time required to create a synthetic fuel supply and distribution infrastructure would be about 30 to 40 years, Christodoulos Floudas, a professor of chemical and biological engineering at Princeton, estimated.
And then there is cost. The adoption of synthetic fuel would cost about $1.1 trillion. According to the EIA, the United States is currently importing about 317 million barrels of crude oil per month at a cost of about $28.5 billion per month. At this level, the synthetic fuel cost represents the cost of crude oil imports of about 39 months.
Totally agree with this guy.
And this applies to the power grid AND vehicle usage.
Synth fuels will have a drawback from the biological point of view and they will produce pollution anyway. (IE: id rather consume electricity than chopping down entire forests for crops to be sown, the soil weakens and industrial giants dont give a shit)
Electrical cars need to be focus no. 1 to the energetic research of USA.
Larger scale solar plants needs to be a priority
On the other hand, I do not oppose thermonuclear power.
Sure it is dangerous, but we live in the 21st century and there are many proofs that it is safer than ever, any scientist could say that. Physics and the engineering behind it are well known by now.
We need anything but oil and coal generating our power.
Talk to me in 60 years when I'm dead and its still not out.
Talk to me in 60 years when I'm dead and its still not out.
Coal: Need this be explained?
Natural gas: Although it's a cleaner fuel than oil or coal, the issue is the gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing. There had been many reports of wells leaking toxic liquid waste (often times contaminated with heavy metals), or leaking so much methane into the watertable that it blows out the water pumps in the surrounding area. Methane is also a much stronger heat trapper than carbon dioxide.
Either way I guess this would still be a step in the right direction
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 !
This is the same reason that other fuel sources have not replaced gas up to this point, because the energy to cost ratio of gas is just that much more than the other solutions. Example, Ethonol costs more to make, and we get less energy from it, so you need more ethonol to get the same work at a much higher cost.
Totally agree with this guy.
And this applies to the power grid AND vehicle usage.
Synth fuels will have a drawback from the biological point of view and they will produce pollution anyway. (IE: id rather consume electricity than chopping down entire forests for crops to be sown, the soil weakens and industrial giants dont give a shit)
Electrical cars need to be focus no. 1 to the energetic research of USA.
Larger scale solar plants needs to be a priority
On the other hand, I do not oppose thermonuclear power.
Sure it is dangerous, but we live in the 21st century and there are many proofs that it is safer than ever, any scientist could say that. Physics and the engineering behind it are well known by now.
We need anything but oil and coal generating our power.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/trident-iceni-biodiesel-car-offers-nearly-69-peak-mpg-or-200-mph-speed-50490.html
Goes 2000 miles between fill-ups well as long as you are cruising around 70mph.
Yeah well, thanks for pointing that out. It sure is THE major problem with that solution.
HOWEVER, thats why I mentioned that Electric Cars should be a research priority (and by this I mean involve federal funds to push and stimulate Universities doing this, and give rewards to the companies that go the same way)
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.
The reason why synthetic oil is ~double the price of standard oil is because it generally takes more time before it breaks down. Synthetic oil provides zero performance or functional advantage over standard oil--regardless of what the marketing says. If you change your oil ever 3k miles with standard oil, or every ~5k miles with synthetic, there will be zero functional impact on your engine over the lifespan of the car.
From a conservation standpoint, synthetic makes sense (one would use a lower volume of synthetic oil over the lifespan of a car than standard oil, so we're not consuming as much or generating as much waste), but it has no functional benefits over standard oil, except you don't have to change the oil as frequently.