Discussions

I know that the question of whether society can, in fact, wean itself off the use of any and all fossil fuels is a touchy subject. There are plenty of opinions and arguments suggesting an absolute need to and plenty suggesting that doing such a thing is likely impossible.  
 
For the sake of this thread, I would like to ignore that question and work on the assumption that it is universally agreed that we must end the use of fossil fuels. Again, this is hypothetical but I think it might be a useful exercise given the current political climate.  
 
What do people think is a realistic time frame for doing away with fossil fuel consumption? Please keep in mind all the ways fossil fuels are entwined in our lives at present.

to develop alternate energy sources because if we bury our heads in the sand we'll be caught short when the need for other energy sources to replace fossil fuels finally hits us. Bottom line is that fossil fuels are a FINITE resource & we have to work NOW on alternatives. We must start developing other technologies to use in our lives or our descendants will be abruptly thrown back 300 years to a pre-Industrial Revolution lifestyle. No cars, no tractors for the farmers producing the food we eat, many people with no heating source for their houses etc. Unfortunately there are too many people clinging to the status quo fossil fuel society rather than thinking ahead.

I am not saying "not getting weaned" off fossil fuels. But for the interim there is another awesome way. Google regenerative farming. If half of the farmers on this planet would be farming this way then within then years from now the amount of carbon in the air would be lower than pre-industrial times!  
 
In a nutshell with the practice of regenerative farming, farmers are using solar power (photosynthesis) to capture CO2 from the air. The plants are keeping the Carbon and it is then converted into simple sugars. Oxygen is then released back to the atmosphere.  
 
Using mob grazing simulating the big herds of buffaloes who roamed the prairies in times long gone the cows are trampling the grass and also putting manure on the land. The manure and trampled grass then is food for the soil organisms which are sequestrating the carbon permanently into the soil which is making the soil more fertile and enable more plant grow and more carbon capturing and sequestration. (Permanent until a farmer comes and till the land in which case the Carbon in the soil will be getting exposed to oxygen and then become CO2 again and we are back to square one)  
 
Just remember organic farming per se is not sequestrating carbon into the soil. It must be regenerative farming. With regenerative farming we can eat all the meat we like knowing that we are preventing climate change. Also the need for pesticides, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides etc. will be non existent. Thus the pollinators like the bees can be thriving again.  
 
Saving the only planet that we have from global warming will take an effort from all of us. Without knowledge how can an effort be made? Carbon tax will not safe the planet. The only things that can, is using less and less fossil fuels and sequestrate the existing carbon into the soil.  
 
Planting more trees is a short term solution. The trees will eventually be getting old and die and rot and viola the carbon is going back into the atmosphere. The grasslands on our planet can play a huge rule in capturing atmospheric Carbon.  
 
Please educate yourselves and learn about regenerative farming.  
 
Farmers can not do this thing by themselves, there must be a demand for beef, grain, vegetables and food produced without any chemicals coming from any factory except mother natures factory.  
 
And again organic farming without implementing regenerative methods are not doing our planet any good.

On CBC news at present is an article on Hydrogen powered trucks. Part of the article read as follows; "When end users burn the fossil fuel, whether oil, gasoline, diesel or natural gas and whether for transportation, electric power or heat, it generates between two and three kilograms of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide per litre for the two liquid fuels we use in cars and trucks."  
Can someone explain how a litre of diesel or petrol weighing maybe a pound or two at most can produce a gas that now weighs 6-8 pounds. What am I not understanding?

Is it maybe that when fossil fuels are burned that C (carbon) gets two O's in the processing becoming CO2 (Carbon dioxide)? So if the carbon molecule gets to extra Oxygen molecules then it should weigh more than before.  
 
But the amount of Carbon will stay the same.  
 
So I think weighing a carbon molecule and then weigh it again after two oxygen molecules are added is interesting even sounding scary but is not telling me much.

In addition to what Traluks is saying, you also have to keep in mind that a litre of fuel will probably weight close to a kilo to begin with. A kilogram is defined as what a litre of water weights (see https://www.britannica.com/science/kilogram) and I think most liquid fossil fuels are less dense than water. So it will be a little less (according to Google, just regular gasoline weights roughly 3/4 of a kg).  
 
So yes, once you add other molecules, namely oxygen, to the mix (which is actually heavier than carbon on the molecular level), yes it can double or triple the weight easily. The other constituants of the fuel will also be counted in that final weight, as they don't disappear but are recombined or released depending on what they are.

I don't realistically see it happening in my lifetime, getting off fossil fuels completely. There's too much money at stake, and too much lifestyle to give up. We say we want the change to happen, but how many of us are willing to give up what we have to gain it (warm, comfortable houses, fresh food year-round, mobility, air travel, consumer products and electronics, etc)?  
 
The turn around to replace those products isn't fast enough and I'm not sure we can ever make it fast enough without sacrificing quality of life. And most people aren't willing to give up their own quality of life even when it means benefiting someone else's, including their children.  
 
Edited by Abbysmum, 2019-10-17 11:06:47

There is absolutely no way to be free of fossil fuels. Everything is in some way made with fossil fuel. anything plastic, meatal, composite, even wood has fossil fuel involved with manufacture process. What people have to do is open their mind to alternative theory, meaning instead of believing what the media pushes, educate yourself in a "non bias manner". For instance read some of the reports by Dr. Judith Curry, an actual scientist with many published papers on climate.

I think a huge unnecessary use of fossil fuel is air travel. If you take note of how many planes are in the air in any given moment around the world. If they were eliminated there would be minimal impact on productivity. Farming is actually carbon neutral and produces more oxygen by growing crops than carbon is created.

I appreciate the thought that some have obviously put into this topic. Despite the calls for urgent action, it sounds like the reality is the continuation of slow and steady improvement.

Without digging too deep into previous entries or strawmaning anyone, this debate can be annoying. It's true that we likely can not EVER wean ourselves 100% off of fossil fuels for everything.  
 
If you look into consumption patterns, however, a good half to 60% is consumed by transportation. Fuel and lubricants. You can probably throw on another 5 to 7% to account for remote power generation.  
 
THIS, is easily removable. And once the battery technology catches up with something with more stability and lifespan than lithium-ion, you will see improvements both in terms of electricity storage AND EV transitions. Considering how little maintenance that EV's have so far proven to need, it's a no brainer for any company with a big fleet.  
 
Plastics manufacturing uses a fairly small amount of the total, which is only going to shrink further. Which leaves some fossil fuel dependence. But as these things go, it's a WHOLE lot better than we are now. Where to go from there is indeed a huge question mark, but the sooner the emissions are reduced, the better.  
 
I don't know how to fully move on from life made possible by petroleum. However, that is a much healthier position than "We will never move on from oil, PERIOD!".  
 
The latter is a death sentence. The former leaves the opportunity for bright minds to do what they do. It could be akin to pulling a rabbit from an invisible hat, but it's something.

Petroleum products are not exactly the bad guy. Burning them is. Plastic contains the carbon. Some co2 emissions in producing plastic. But until it gets burned the product itself is holding carbon. Not releasing it. Lubricants are in the same category. How do we go to even no burning fossil fuels? I can’t realistically see it happening until electric vehicles are better than gas. By then it will be too late.

This is some of what I was hoping to get to in the first place. Transportation is a big issue, especially in Canada based on our vast geography and minimal population density.  
 
Are you thinking we need to replace the fossil fuels used for transportation or reduce them. If the answer is replace, what time frame do you think is reasonable if/when a suitable replacement is available?  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-10-18 13:02:47

Ultimately replace. Electrification of vehicles is happening and will increase. Every automaker has numerous models due out in the next few years. Cars suvs trucks. Might be a hybrid that can drive 50-100k on battery then gas. Or full electric. Since people are keeping their vehicles longer and lots of these models won’t be out for a couple of years it won’t be quick. I would say it will take ten years to see a real noticeable difference at current fuel prices. Now if a government put a 50 cent or one dollar per litre ev tax and gave that as subsidy to ev buyers it could happen a lot faster. But I don’t see that happening.

The Tesla 3 range currently sits at roughly 400km. Now, imagine what that number will look like in 20 or even 40 years. I wouldn't imagine that a firm take-over of the electric vehicle all that unlikely by the time our grand kids are buying their first car.

My take on this issue is that transitioning to alternatives and supporting the oil and gas industry aren't mutually exclusive ideas. We can support both at the same time.  
 
Most studies who have looked into it have us reaching "peak oil" (the point at which we will start to use less oil) somewhere in the next 15-50 years, depending who you want to believe is right. It's a matter of when, not if. Up until then we will have serious demands for oil, and currently we have two mains options - foreign or domestic. I realize we probably can't extract enough oil to support ourselves, and certainly can't process it enough to make all the by products Canadians need. At the same time we can be supporting new green technologies as they develop.

Not exactly sure what you meant. I think you are saying it will take a long time. If so agreed. My ten year for a noticeable difference is that they will be more than a rounding error in yearly sales. And seeing one on the road won’t be unusual. The automakers are all in on them it seems. But that could change too.

According to Putin and the data he's received, the estimate for crude oil as the #1 energy source is another 25 years. He said this when recently asked about clean energy and Greta Thunberg. His response also made some reasonable points about developing/poor countries.  
 
The youtube link won't work but the title of the vid is "It's official - GRETA is a project" The vid title is the uploader's bias, it's just a translated video and not propaganda.  
 
<: width=:"420" height=:"315" src=:" frameborder=:"0" allowfullscreen>:<:/>:  
 
Edited by TDCAU, 2019-10-18 18:14:21

I like where you are headed with this. A transition to alternatives while supporting oil and gas. Sounds reasonable to me.  
 
I am going to question your doubt as to whether we can extract enough oil to support ourselves though. I am suing 2018 numbers as 2019 is not complete yet.  
 
Canada has less than 1/2 of 1% of the worlds population based on rounding Canada's population to 37 million people and the world's to 7.6 billion. We do contribute 1.7% of the world's green house gas emissions which sounds terrible until you take into account our population density and that we produce 5% of the world (4th biggest producing country).  
 
Given that the statistics then show that our carbon footprint, while large per capita, is actually small given population density and production levels, how can anyone rail against oil and gas production domestically while working to develop required alternatives? One also must question the sanity of importing millions of barrels of oil from less environmentally friendly countries especially given the environmental impact of oil tankers.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-10-18 18:46:18

Electric Cars can already be made better than gas. Tesla has done it. other companies are slacking. Kia has a good product butarent promoting it (I also don't know if the Nero has the proper battery management system to ensure temperature control for cold climates (tesla does)).  
The Tech is here. several companies will be launching trucks in the next 2 years. they will be good, but it remains to be seen how good.

The "we have to start now" is a mute argument. We started over 10 years ago. Almost every oil company is researching green tech and oil phase-out scenarios. Do you think EV, solar, wind, geothermal, reinjecting carbon, clean coal, and other technology would have come about without trying to do something about our footprint? Peak oil is ~30 years away. That fact alone will push us to other technologies fairly quickly. You will see this effort ramp up in the next 5 years, no matter what the green movement does. Canada will supply oil to other nations who made the transition slower because Canadas has one of the largest reserves of unconventional oil is the world. That pipeline will get built eventually, even if it is not in the next 10 years. In 10 years I do not expect that there will be a single new mass-produced gas vehicle for sale. In 15 years gas stations will be a rare sight unless methane or hydrogen technologies improve to split the market. We will have to build nuclear plants and a substantial number of them, as most power needs will come from the Grid, including all transportation. We currently don't have the power infrastructure in place that is needed to make the switch today.  
 
Edited by rum, 2019-10-18 19:47:33

Thing is the average age of vehicles on the road is over 10 years. That alone says gas stations will be plentiful for a while yet. Without a big change in fuel price why do I get rid of my gas guzzler. Your vision sounds great. Maybe, but seems a bit optimistic. All comes down to money. Electric vehicles are too expensive at this point to compete.