Oil Alternatives!

  • Thread starter GT4 genius
  • 297 comments
  • 12,838 views

Which oil alternative will be dominate in the next 10 to 20 years

  • Hydrogen or hydrogen based fuel cells

    Votes: 17 25.0%

  • Bio-Diesel

    Votes: 22 32.4%

  • Electricity

    Votes: 5 7.4%

  • None, we'll use every drop of oil in the ground!

    Votes: 22 32.4%

  • "Other"

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Total voters
    68
In the "short" term I'd say that bio-fuels are the solution IMO. They can be distributed through the current infrastructure and can be run in current cars with some adaption to the engine and fuel line.

Hydrogen is the long term alternative though, I think. But we need to sort alot of things first. Such as safe storage in cars, changes to the disribution system and more efficient manufacturing.

Electricity will never be an option IMO, not in the sense of cars being charged from the power grid. We are currentley struggling to meet energy demands with renewable energy sources as it is, let alone with the extra pressure of having cars running off electricity aswell.
 
In Iceland a few buses run on hydrogen safely and they also have the worlds first hydrogen refueling pump available for the public. So it shouldn't take more than 20 yrs to start up a hydrogen fueled economy.

PS what does IMO stand for? Thats probably a stupid question!
 
GT4 genius
In Iceland a few buses run on hydrogen safely and they also have the worlds first hydrogen refueling pump available for the public. So it shouldn't take more than 20 yrs to start up a hydrogen fueled economy.

PS what does IMO stand for? Thats probably a stupid question!
Click to expand...
IMO= In my opinion.

Iceland has the benefit of having huge geothermal resources which can meet the huge energy demands of producing Hydrogen. Also, people will probably be keener to adopt to hydrogen power in a country such as Iceland where it's unlikely they'll ever take their car out of the country. In mainland Europe that would be more difficult as you'd then need to have masses of rental companies on the border of the countries.
 
I dont see the problem with using a hydrogen car abroad if the pump stations were as wide spread as petrol pumps are today.
But definitely bio-diesel will have to be used as an intermediate fuel in the short term. However this also has its downsides. As you know bio-diesel is largly derived from crops, and even if these crops were not edible the land on which they would be grown may have been used for the growth of a food crop so bio-diesel may drive up the price of food as well as make it scare in some countries
 
Don't most alternative fuels require more petroleum then if we were to just use petrol in our vehicles? I mean yes, ethanol is great but it requires a lot of equipment to farm the land to grow the corn. Also hydrogen requires a huge amount of petroleum burning derived electricity to produce the stuff. So however it works out we are still going to be burning lots and lots of oil.

Personally I like the idea of a compressed air engines which powers a generator which powers a compressor. It's almost a perfect machine...errr perpetual motion I believe its called. Granted this wouldn't give you a huge amount of power and the cars would have to be small, but pretty much everyone outside of America doesn't need a car all that big.

For America where we need cars in order to go anywhere and everywhere I say we just get really really efficient cars that burn the E85 stuff or some form of biodiesel.

I don't want to be negative about the subject because I fully support an alternative fuel, especially if it's cheaper and renewable, but I look at it from the big picture and if it requires just as much if not more energy to make it in the first place or it's really expensive, there really is no point.
 
I said none because I don't see oil losing dominance in 10-20 years. It is a much longer term than that.

My opinions on some of these alternatives:

Hydrogen: Needs a lot of work, but probably the best option long-term, if the technology is ever properly developed. It meets everyone's wants for emissions and efficiency, but it isn't cheap and has a long road to adoption.

As for city buses that use them, they are not financially feasible, but it looks great as a PR move by the city. We have a few of them locally, but the city can't replace more than a handful with hydrogen because it is too expensive.


Bio-fuel: This will make a great intermediary, but long-term it won't work unless there is a lot of refinement to the technology. If we can't get more fuel from the plants then we will hurt our food supplies. Milk prices in the US are supposedly up due to feed corn being switched to bio-diesel corn. How long before my grocery bills go up on the produce side as well? From an economic perspective it won't make sense as we will pay more somewhere.

Then there is the fact that if we create more farm land then the farm machinery will burn more fuel, and it reduces area for wildlife. Bio-fuel is merely a step away from oil, but does not fix any problems as it will peak before oil does.


Electricity: Really? Anyone? This solves nothing. Sad to say, but electricity from the power grid does not grow on trees. Most of it is made using fossil fuels. Driving an electric car may make you feel better but you haven't solved anything. The only way this becomes viable is if the entire power grid goes nuclear (because other "natural" forms, such as wind, solar, and hydraulic, produce very little in comparison), and nuclear creates a whole lot of NIMBY-ism. And this doesn't even delve into the cost to the consumer, drive time, and vehicular power issues. It is hard to sell a guy who loves his sports car on an electric car. The transition will be difficult to make due to consumers not wanting to be a part of it.



Currently oil is the most available, has the best dollar to energy ratio, and is extremely popular. A transition happening in 20 years or less would require severe economic impact and so even if the next technology is developed it will be well beyond 20 years before we completely switchover.

Then you face political and economic barriers. Even if most developed nations agree to a switchover you will have developing nations in an uproar. They need the cheapness of oil to get their economies moving. To completely switch will set them back years. Western countries already harm developing countries by banning DDT worldwide and other drugs that have side effects that are definitely better than the alternative. (DDT history: DDT was used to kill mosquitoes, effectively stopping the spread of malaria. Environmentalists believe it harmed bird eggs and got the UN to ban its use worldwide. African countries have thousands, if not millions, of malaria deaths every year and beg the UN to allow DDT use, but the birds are safe.)

Whatever the alternative we must use care in how we harm ourselves in other ways and who else we harm as well.
 
At least in the US... until They do it to save the planet and not for the next way to make a profit alternative fuels don't have a chance. It's up to the private sector. :rolleyes:
 
It's still fairly arguable on how much damage the automobile is doing to the planet. I can see where cars 50 years ago weren't exactly the cleanest things around but pretty much any car made in the the last 10 years or so is pretty good. I say we just keep making the petrol burning cars cleaner and more efficient, which will work for a while. I bet we could have diesels that get 100mpg without to much effort...I mean we already have them that will do 60mpg or so.
 
Ooh.. Joey, where might I find an example of this compressor driving motor driving compressor concept?

That's interesting!
 
The Earth's citizens will use every last drop of oil before something gets done on a broad scale.
 
JCE3000GT
The Earth's citizens will use every last drop of oil before something gets done on a broad scale.
Click to expand...

Get's done on a broad scale cheaply...if it's expensive we will just riot and, to quote someone famous and possibly wise, "burn this mother down".
 
Without fossil fuels, namely gasoline, there is no VTEC. Without VTEC there can be no life.
 
Joey D
Personally I like the idea of a compressed air engines which powers a generator which powers a compressor. It's almost a perfect machine...errr perpetual motion I believe its called. Granted this wouldn't give you a huge amount of power and the cars would have to be small, but pretty much everyone outside of America doesn't need a car all that big.
Click to expand...
It's theoretically impossible. And what you describe here is different to what is in the links. In order for it to be perputual it would require no energy to leave the cycle. That means no noise, no sound and certainly no kinetic energy to the wheels.

What they use in the links given is compressed air, that is compressed by an electric motor at an "energy station" or the use of brake regeneration technology. Which is certainly possible, but maybe only for shorter journies.
 
ExigeExcel
It's theoretically impossible. And what you describe here is different to what is in the links. In order for it to be perputual it would require no energy to leave the cycle. That means no noise, no sound and certainly no kinetic energy to the wheels.

What they use in the links given is compressed air, that is compressed by an electric motor at an "energy station" or the use of brake regeneration technology. Which is certainly possible, but maybe only for shorter journies.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a perpetual motion machine, I said it was almost. I know a perpetual motion machine is technically impossible. Maybe the car has changed since it's been on the TV programme I watched as it was quite some time ago. I didn't really read the links, I just saw that they were the same air car that was on the show.
 
If say in 15yrs 85% of the worlds energy was from nuclear fusion, not fission, and the rest from renewables would it be more likely that all cars would drive on "plug in" electricity or would it be more effective using tanks of hydrogen.
 
Nuclear energy will never take off here in the states because a vast majority can not see past the fact that there is a tiny chance of a melt down.
 
If the idiots here in West Michigan would have allowed for the proposed wind-farms on Lake Michigan, the concept of more electrically-driven vehicles around here would seem like a far more realistic idea. If you've ever been to Lake Michigan, you know how much power can be drawn out of the wind, and its a shame that they seem to think these giant mills would be "ugly" (I think they look cool...).

The easy-sqeazy alternative right now is going to be bio-fuels, be it bio-diesel or bio-ethanol. Personally speaking, I don't see the Hybrid "band-aid" being that popular any longer, and with market interests already moving towards diesel power, I think its a no-brainer to see where it will eventually go.

The good news is, the US is more than capable of producing bio-fuels on a large scale. Problem is, the Feds and the States have to agree on how to accomplish it, furthermore, not have the oil companies stand in their way (like they already have been). We'll see what comes of it, but I'm looking into diesel power again (for the umpteenth time) for my next car, just to be ready.
 
GT4 genius
If say in 15yrs 85% of the worlds energy was from nuclear fusion, not fission, and the rest from renewables would it be more likely that all cars would drive on "plug in" electricity or would it be more effective using tanks of hydrogen.
Click to expand...
Well, the transition time would take more than 15 yrs, but if the majority of electricty went the fission route then it would definitely be possible. The success of the transition will be determined by the quality of the electric cars.

Currently I drive 80 miles every day for work. Most electric car designs won't make it that far. And of course, I would definitely need something that can run about 70 mph that distance as well.

This creates a huge technical hurdle because to store more electricty for long distances with good power will require better storage. Currently to get longer distances you have to add more weight for more cells, which drains from the power even more. The key will be larger storage capacity with lighter weight cells or you will hit break even point.

And then, that is just as a daily driver. If I want to drive to Florida, that is a 10-14 hour drive depending on where in Florida. A fuel stop now doesn't take me more than 10-15 minutes, but if I have to stop to recharge my car how long does that take? Some technologies use braking to recharge the battery, but on an interstate journey I am rarely using the brakes, and then not that hard or long.


Electric cars have a long way to go because the goal is to replace our current system while meeting our current needs. An electric car is so far from that point it isn't a near term viability. To be a total replacement an electric car will have to go probably close to 24 hours of interstate driving. Then hotels can put an outlet in every parking space and charge a recharge fee.

Will that be technically possible in 15-20 years? Maybe. But even then I doubt it will be financially accessible for the average person for another 10+ years. I currently see bio-fuels being a great intermittent and then hydrogen or electric racing to see who can be widely accesible first.

And that is all assuming some new form of technology doesn't come along to throw into the mix.
 
Ah. That compressed air principle is still used in many factories to shuttle heavy loads across them by driverless trains.
 
The other thing to remember with electricity is that we risk becoming electricity dependant. Even more than we are now. It's one thing to have no lights, no TV but to also be unable to move from an area that may be without electricity due to a storm is a completely different matter.
 
That's a good point.

Any form of transportation should be independent from electricity so one could be able to leave a potentially disaster stricken area. But, the Gasoline/Ethanol pumps are electrically powered. So, after power outage due to a storm, there would be no gas. Unless one finds a station that uses old Visible Tokheim pumps.

Seriously, guys. The Ford Nucleon IS the answer.
 
Joey D
Nuclear energy will never take off here in the states because a vast majority can not see past the fact that there is a tiny chance of a melt down.
Click to expand...

I'm taking about nuclear fusion which dosen't have any of the dangerous radioactive fall out or even by-products of present day fission. But it is still at an experimental stage, the problem is not using more energy heating the hydrogen atoms to a plasma stage than is released when the hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium.
 
It doesn't matter how safe it is, people here in America are afraid of nuclear energy and I don't know why. I'm all for it.
 
Joey D
Nuclear energy will never take off here in the states because a vast majority can not see past the fact that there is a tiny chance of a melt down.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Everyone thinks that it will be another Chernobyl, or that it is more like The Simpsons and all the fish will have three eyes or something.

90% of the NIMBYs out there think nuclear = radiation = mutation and/or death.

The reactors today are built with so many safeguards that even in the event of a meltdown radiation won't escape. Chernobyl was built by poor standards for its time.

YSSMAN
If the idiots here in West Michigan would have allowed for the proposed wind-farms on Lake Michigan, the concept of more electrically-driven vehicles around here would seem like a far more realistic idea. If you've ever been to Lake Michigan, you know how much power can be drawn out of the wind, and its a shame that they seem to think these giant mills would be "ugly" (I think they look cool...).
Click to expand...
But...but...the birds!!!!! YOU'LL KILL THE BIRDS!!!!! :sly:

The problem with wind farms is that they merely supplement current power and none have produced enough to replace something on the scale of a nuclear power plant. Build a nuclear plant and you will get much more power with a much smaller footprint.

ExigeExcel
The other thing to remember with electricity is that we risk becoming electricity dependant. Even more than we are now. It's one thing to have no lights, no TV but to also be unable to move from an area that may be without electricity due to a storm is a completely different matter.
Click to expand...
Well, if I ever find myself buying an electric, plug-in car I will probably stop by Home Depot on the way home to buy a generator.
 
FoolKiller
But...but...the birds!!!!! YOU'LL KILL THE BIRDS!!!!! :sly:
Click to expand...

Actually talk to BP about that, they are dumping a ton of chemicals into Lake Michigan...I'm sure the birds are already dead.
 
Joey D
It doesn't matter how safe it is, people here in America are afraid of nuclear energy and I don't know why. I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

But nuclear fusion is almost completely different than fission there are no nasty by-products that have to be formed into glass and burried miles under ground in a secret location or anything, and the energy that is released is vast, eg. the average explosive has a small detenator, usually much smaller than the actual explosive well the fission bomb, which releases the energy you are taking about is the detenator for the collossal hydrogen fusion explosive. If we did perfect fusion there would be quite literally a bottomless pit of energy.

Uranium which is used in fission isn't endless infact "encarta" figures suggest that we may run out in as little as 100yrs, and thats at current levels of excavation.
 
GT4 genius
But nuclear fusion is almost completely different than fission there are no nasty by-products that have to be formed into glass and burried miles under ground in a secret location or anything, and the energy that is released is vast, eg. the average explosive has a small detenator, usually much smaller than the actual explosive well the fission bomb, which releases the energy you are taking about is the detenator for the collossal hydrogen fusion explosive. If we did perfect fusion there would be quite literally a bottomless pit of energy.
Click to expand...
I think you've missed the point. It isn't that it is bad. You know that, he knows that, and I know that, but the general public hears the word nuclear and immediately pictures mutants and mushroom clouds. They won't want to listen to the facts about how unbad it is because they think they already know everything they need to know.

It is called NIMBY-ism, or Not In My BackYard. NIMBY-ism is the number one hold up to energy progress.
 
I think you are missing my point i dont think that nuclear fission stations should be built anymore they too are going to run out of fuel, the have far too many extremely dangerous by-products and have to be shut down after 25yrs. Yes they'll not directly lead to global warming and yes they'll give is carbon free energy to create hydrogen by electrolysis but they are not sustainable either. And although you may not have a problem with living near an nuclear plant i'm sure you would have your reservations about living near a nuclear waste dump! Also the regulations under which these plants are kept is mere guess work. The european guidelines for radio waves states that once the waves do not cause a living creatures organs to heat up they are safe now tell me you would not mind living near a plant!
PS i'm not a nimby just stating the facts, i would support fission had there been no such thing as fusion.
 

Similar threads

jigman5
Oil Change First or Car Wash First?
Replies
26
Views
3K
fisheye
fisheye
DTHolm
  • Question
Willow Springs an oil
Replies
7
Views
989
ZedNinetySix
ZedNinetySix
Cherryturbo
Polyphony: State your intentions.
Replies
13
Views
2K
Miroku
Miroku
K
Oil stains & dust in GT7? Blink and you'll miss it.
Replies
11
Views
6K
ICEYOU3
ICEYOU3
Famine
GTPlanet Quick Drives: Ford Mustang Mach-E GT
Replies
6
Views
3K
PaMu1337
PaMu1337

Latest Posts

Back