Oil.



  • How do you see oil so unusefull you are burning it now?



  • Our (mine and neighbours) homes use wood to heat.
    I do car sharing as i need a car, living in a state with less infrastructure.

    And you?



  • I usually walk or use public transport. I use wood for heating too.
    But I've been places, where there was so many cars...


  • Moderator

    @quang-luan Not aware of anyone saying oil is unuseful - only that its use as a combustible comes at an unacceptable cost. Rather, people say it should be replaced insofar as possible with energy sources that do not destroy the atmosphere and the planet.



  • Unfortunately cars are needed by people, some can not walk, some need transporting heavy goods, some need cars to show high income.
    All these cars use raffined crude oil and produce air pollution.
    So that is burning oil.

    You forgot to mention other usage of oil products:

    • Medical products
    • Clothing, shoes etc.
    • Colors
    • Technical goods
    • Tubes, foils, furnature
      and so on...

    Such products and their production process are often problematical for the environment, polluting water and sea, and could not easy recycled.

    How to reduce this?



  • @quang-luan said in Oil.:

    How do you see oil so unusefull you are burning it now?

    Oil is useful. Normally I try to keep the temperature in my pan low enough, so the oil doesn't burn. I try to avoid using thermostable oil, but sometimes there is no other way.



  • Oil is necessary, but as a non-renewable resource too valuable to be used as a mere fuel
    Therefore it is essential to look for renewable alternatives to produce energy and efficient methods to save it

    Examples
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30816255

    https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14055756/solar-panel-road-electricity-france-normandy

    etc.

    We are surrounded by all kinds of energies that are not exploited, not only solar or wind energy, residual heat, geothermics, tides, waves and a long list.
    Only lacking ideas and desire to realize them, oil is a business too good


  • Moderator

    @gwen-dragon I completely agree. I drive a hybrid, so as to reduce the pollution stemming from frequent round trips of 2050 Km I have to make. That helps. Pollution from chemical processes utilizing oil can, oddly, be sharply reduced by plasma incineration.

    But, yes, we are a long way from a fossil-fuel-free solution.



  • The Netherlands up to 2030 will prohibit circulation with vehicles with internal combustion engines.
    We're closer to electric cars than we think.
    On the other hand the biggest pollution does not come from the cars, but by the boats, which for reasons of costs use fuels of the worse quality that pollute much more than the petrol or diesel of the cars.



  • My point is, there is much uses for oil. But burning it for conventional low distance transport is really obsolete.

    Banning combustible engine is somehow wrong too, because they are against all the combustion, because price go up then, if you just go for biomass, it could be really good, because there is lot of biological waste if you use hemp as main source of protein instead of meat.

    Also boats are awesome.



  • @quang-luan said in Oil.:

    My point is, there is much uses for oil. But burning it for conventional low distance transport is really obsolete.

    Banning combustible engine is somehow wrong too, because they are against all the combustion, because price go up then, if you just go for biomass, it could be really good, because there is lot of biological waste if you use hemp as main source of protein instead of meat.

    Also boats are awesome.

    The future is not in explosion engines, but in electric motors.
    Not only for ecological reasons, but also because they have a much longer useful life with almost 0 maintenance (explosion engine = hundreds of moving parts, electric motor = 1 moving part), apart from having a much higher performance than a combustion engine (more than 30%, eléctric motor 200hp>more than 350hp in motor fuel, because electric motors have their maximum torque from zero revolutions, combustion engines only from several thousand revolutions and electric motors for this do not need a gearbox
    Electric cars can have two systems, one based on batteries, or that electricity is provided by hydrogen fuel cells (a system that converts air and hydrogen into water, generating electricity).



  • This post is deleted!


  • @catweazle Hydrogen is more viable in being liquid than battery, part of hydrogen synthesis can already be photoinduced. And also motor-block for organic methanol doesn't contains magnets or copper wires that much. Also it's easier to take energy for it for long trips. i.e. Going somewhere to explore dessert. Also battery can't be drained effectively that much in -50 i think, and methanol still haven't frozen and engine is running.



  • @quang-luan said in Oil.:

    @catweazle Hydrogen is more viable in being liquid than battery, part of hydrogen synthesis can already be photoinduced. And also motor-block for organic methanol doesn't contains magnets or copper wires that much. Also it's easier to take energy for it for long trips. i.e. Going somewhere to explore dessert. Also battery can't be drained effectively that much in -50 i think, and methanol still haven't frozen and engine is running.

    Yes and no. Hydrogen, taken directly as fuel in an internal combustion engine, although it does not contaminate it either, offers the same disadvantages of a gasoline engine, with a high maintenance cost.
    Apart from its particularity requires modifications in the engine that mean a higher risk of failure, for example in the joints.
    A combustion cell is a device in which hydrogen is combined with oxygen from the air to produce electricity that feeds the electric motor, in a reverse process as we know it from our physics classes, where we connect electrical cables to a container with water, to produce hydrogen and oxygen. It is a purely chemical process and not combustion.
    It is an alternative to batteries, but not the electric motor for propulsion.
    But in practice it has lower performance than a battery for a simple reason.
    The batteries can be recharged with the power of braking, as they are done in Tesla models, which offers greater autonomy (400-500 km in a modern electric car), which is not possible in case of using cells of hydrogen.
    It is true that the advantage of hydrogen is to refuel it like in a gasoline car, but this advantage over batteries will also disappear with unified battery techniques, which allow to change empty versus recharged in a few seconds at the stations.
    New techniques allow recharge in less than 20 minutes already at present.



  • How much battery do I need to go with 20 tons of load?



  • This post is deleted!


  • @quang-luan said in Oil.:

    How much battery do I need to go with 20 tons of load?

    No 20 tons. https://www.tesla.com/roadster/
    Look what you can do in an electric car. Well, this is high-end, but in the lower middle class, the current technology is the same.
    All this counterpropaganda against electric cars is of a political nature and of interests of a powerful oil industry, but not of technological or practical nature
    The most flagrant case
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1



  • I'm not talking about Tesla, but effective transport of matter. Personal issues doesn't really give me time. Problem is, on intercontinental cargo ship, you need to burn organic combustible fuel. That's most of the damage, but authorities told you to focus on getting green cars, so economy wouln't feel conversion of cargo ships.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.