What would we use as a substitute to fossil fuels in an environmentally friendly way?

Question

how much energy would we use to create this 'substitute' and why have we gotten so used to fossil fuels that we have it harder to change to something else ?

Answer 1

Ethanol and electricity.  

Brazil is a country that has fazed out fossil fuels and is doing well because of it.  Read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fue...

I think that because the car companies and the government doesn't want to spend the money to convert to better sources of fuel is part of the problem.  Also, we have so many products like plastic that are made from oil.  What would our world be like without plastic?  It is a hard one to say, but one that must be looked at in the near future.  

Also another reason is why we are at war with Iraq.  Oil.

Answer 2

In my opinion the most desirable substitute for gasoline, at least, is cellulosic ethanol.  This is ethanol made from non-starch plant materials (such as wood, wheat and corn stalks, grasses; basically any non-food plant part) and doesn't emit any net carbon dioxide (the same amount of carbon emitted is absorbed by next year's crop.)  Thus this has a low environmental impact and domestic supply of cellulosic materials far exceeds the amounts necessary to meet demand (i.e., the US could supply all of its own gasoline-substitute needs)

The reason that this hasn't undergone widespread implementation is that until recently it wasn't cost-feasible (after all, oil is cheap - just poke a hole in the ground and stick the crude in what's essentially a big settling tower until you get the products you want)  But there is a canadian company (Sunopta) that claims it can currently produce for $1.70/gallon.  This is still more directly costly than gas since you have higher transport costs (can't use pipelines) and ethanol provides less energy per gallon, but it is my contention that using cellulosic ethanol would be cheaper if all costs are considered.

How effective, for example, do you think middle-eastern terrorists would be if we weren't sending hundreds of billions of US dollars into that region every year?  Or what would the residual effects be if those hundreds of billions of dollars flowed into the pockets of US farmers instead of the Saudis?    Keep in mind that oil alone is responsible for about 1/3 of our trade deficit.  

Also, as the technology improves, the price point for cellulosic should come down.  Sunopta has claimed that they expect to achieve an eventual production price under $1.00/gal.

For the rest of our domestic energy solutions, it will likely require a combination of solar, wind, nuclear, clean coal technology.  Or ITER pans out in a big way and fusion is on!

(as a disclaimer, I own stock in SunOpta so might be biased)

Answer 3

In answer to the second question--fossil fuels became the norm a century ago because they were convenient, easy to use, and cheap.  It's only in the last few decades that the long-term problems of pollution have become understood--and only recently that alternative technologies have begun to fall incost along with long term increases in fossil fuel costs, chnanging the economic equation.

Right now, we do not yet have cost-effective technology capable of eliminating fossil fuels entirely--but we do have alternatives that can reduce our use drastically--and do so in ways that will help consumers and the economy, not hurt it, despite the scare tactics being used by the oil/coal/natural gas industries.

Here's some examples--and if you think about each, you'll see that, although some involve "up-front cost"--investment, all will SAVE the individual money in the long run--and besides the new industries some (like solar energy) will create, that means more consumer buying power--which will help the economy grow.  

>Solar energy

>Gradually switching to energy efficient devices--from light bulbs to fuel-efficient cars as it comes time to replace existing items.

>Investing in home insulation--and switching to energy-efficient housing designs (thosehave been around for decades).

>promoting expanded public transit systems (wich would also have the virtue of helping relieve traffic congestion, among other things)

That'sonly a partilal list.  And doesn't take into account any of the new technologies that are being developed.  But even that much would not only benefit the economy and the consumer, it would cut our fossil fuel use by mid century by 30-60%, depending on how fully we as a country implement these strategies. BTW--also get us to the poindt of energy independance, so we won't need foreign oil.

Answer 4

We are so used to fossil fuels because they are cheap and plentiful.  So far, the alternative choices are neither cheap nor plentiful.

Regarding the environmentally friendliness of ethanol, how environmentally friendly is it to clear the landscape of natural growth to plant crops--including their fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides?

Answer 5

If I had to use something to replace oil I would choose wood.

Wood can be 'cracked' like oil to produce a bio-oil which could replace diesel although it is more useful as a petrochemical substitute.

Hybrid wood pellet stoves combined with Sterling engines can provide both heat and electricity for homes.

Solar power is great but makes way too little electricity to make hot water, heat or for cooking in a house but it would be a great way to power laptops, lights, and other electrical devices that use less electricity.

There are also people who have used woodgas to replace gasoline in regular car engines (well, older ones without so many electronic parts).  Wood is easily renewable and can replace gasoline, although you would have to accept a 50% drop in horsepower.

Although if everyone switched over to woodgas for their vehicles the pollution would be terrible so you would have to mix better public transport into the mix.

Cellulosic ethanol is great, but also really scary.  Ethanol can power cars with mostly less pollution (although more ozone is produced and a recent study says that may cause more pollution and deaths in some areas).  The thing that scares me is that if the enzymes for cellulosic ethanol got into the environment it could start breaking down that stuff that lets trees go tall.

Answer 6

For fixed power supplies (homes, offices, etc), nuclear, wind, and solar power are the most widely used renewable energy sources. Other sources such as ocean waves are being explored and have shown promise.

For automobiles, clean burning fuels (ex. ethanol), hydrogen, and battery power have been used, however, these cars are very expensive. It will take some time before these compete with gasoline cars. Hybrid cars use a combination of gasoline and batteries, thus being more expensive but still affordable.

The most revolutionary concept being researched is fusion energy. Basically, atoms will be smashed together and the reaction creates energies roughly equal to the Sun. Scientists are close to the answer, but more research is required.

Answer 7

I heat my home with a furnace fired on dead puppies...

And I run my 5 MPG 1959 Cadillac on a bio-fuel made from the pulp of the rare sequoia redwood tree...

Both of these fuel sources are highly inefficient and generate far more pollution than standardly accepted fuels, but I am carbon neutral because I purchase carbon credits from the company that Al Gore referred me to.

Save the Fossils!