What should be the alternative for oil?

Question

My suggestion is coal. The US is the largest producer of coal and would dominate the entire industry if they decided to invest. The only drawback is that each plant would cost 5 billion to make. This however would not be a problem if the government would fund the project. It would only take a few plants to begin production. Not only would it cut gas prices in half, but it would be 100% safe for the enviroment and the supply is virtually limitless.

Let's hear some of your suggestions (although mine is the best =) )

Answer 1

electricity, but we have to throw out all the politicians who are getting paid off by oil companies to stop electrical research. we have enough coastline to install wave turbines at sea. we have enough rivers to make hydroelectric power.

alcohol, made by corn liquor. its renewable

of course we will have to change the way we do things to conserve power.
1) people will need to start riding bikes more or take trains and public transport rather than single occupancy SUVs all the time. in many foreign countries, the majority of people ride little motor scooters.
2) plant shade trees in cities. the summer heat in cities is partially due to a city being a 100 square mile concrete slab. those tend to get hot when the sun shines on them. planting trees cuts down on the amount of energy needed to cool a house.
3) make cities more pedestrian friendly. by limiting the roads that motor vehicles can drive on, it will cut down on driving. stop wal mart from building their stores in the suburbs where people have to drive a car over there if they want to shop. car traffic and foot traffic should travel at different levels in a city. this can be done by having cars and trains travel in underground tunnels, or have pedestrian traffic travel in elevated walkways or any other combination you like.

The alternative for oil is to change our way of thinking. to stop our excessive consumption of oil, energy, space, and luxury.

Answer 2

Although currently not a practical solution today. For the future I would like to see Liquid Hydrogen. I could see this as a practical solution if the Helium 3 research is successful in conjunction with the future moon missions where fusion is explored as a possible alternative. Both Liquid Hydrogen and fusion have absolutely no waste and are entirely renewable. The 5% of the wealthy that owns 80% of the wealth of the world would not be happy with this solution. I think they would like coal.

Answer 3

It depends on the usage, actually.

If you're talking about pure electrical generation, coal is still heavily used in the midwest, although the plants that burn it are much cleaner in operation than they had been years ago. Still, they are not perfect, and many of the methods to clean coal leave toxic wastes that must be disposed of.

As far as improving the infrastructure (ie, building more plants), you're assuming more than you should. The Federal government is not as apt to invest in coal - the political pressures against it would be substantial, and there's plenty on the plate already. It would most likely be a private investment, or a joint public-private affair (such as plants for smaller cities that are purchased with a combination of private capital and local tax funds).

It's optimistic to say that gas prices would be cut in half - even if we eliminated the burning of oil for electricity generation, this is only a small component of overall demand for petroleum. Petroleum has uses in internal combustion engines (of course), as well as industry, and is still used heavily overseas for electricity generation.

I wouldn't say that coal is 100% safe for the environment. Current practices of extraction, refining, and combustion are not entirely without consequence. Nor is the supply virtually limitless; it's simply very large compared with current usage. Note that if we have a 500-year supply at current levels, and double our usage, we only have a 250-year supply.

If you're considering coal for use in automobiles, we're quite a way off from making that technology feasible. We are much closer to solutions in biofuels (ie, vegetable oils, soy-based fuels and blends, etc), in part because this is the direction in which the research has progressed.

IMHO, there is no one alternative for oil. For power generation, a greater reliance upon renewable resources, coupled with greater energy efficiency (including efficient appliances as well as allowing more telecommuting and the introduction of shifts for office workers to allow use of power during off-peak periods when the cost of production is lower), and an increased reliance on nuclear reactors, is a more long-term solution. Note it is not perfect, since we still have radioactive waste, although the intent is to have something to use for the next 50 years while development in low-footprint methods continues.

For combustion in automobiles and other vehicles, a greater reliance upon biofuels is called for. THere is a caveat here, however; one answerer has quite correctly noted that Brazil uses sugar cane to produce ethanol. THis has been a tremendous help to the Brazilian economy and reduced the impact of oil supply; at the same time, there is substantial environmental risk - one drought, and there is an energy crisis. At the same time, with our dependence on foreign oil, for the U.S. one war means an energy crisis.

Looking long-term, as the only true solutions can be, a decreasing reliance upon automobiles will be necessary. This doesn't mean that everyone shouldnt' have one, but rather that it would be helpful for businesses to decentralize where possible and all more working from home. City planners should insist upon more mass transit. One of the shames in St. Louis is that people would rather sit in traffic for two hours every day than take a train, the ticket for which costs half as much as gas when purchased on a monthly level.

It will be helpful if we have a breakthrough in fuel cells (and I own stock in several fuel cell companies, so you can see my optimism here!), but that may still be years away.

Sorry for the ramble.

Answer 4

Coal ???? No way, we can't produce coal, it's a fossil fuel. It stinks. Using coal would be a step back into the Victorian age.

Look at Brazil, current using Sugar! as a base for their fuel. A renewable energy source and available at most pumps across their country. Brazil already had an Oil crisis, they overcame it because their politicians were not so deeply tied to corrupt oil companies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p05s01-woam.html

Answer 5

The best alternative for oil is natural gas. It has the greatest heat yield per unit of weight, and the lowest possible level of carbon emission (every molecule of methane consists of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms, so burning methane produces two molecules of water for every molecule of carbon dioxide). Coal, in contrast, is pure carbon, so burning it creates lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

As to producing motor fuels from coal, you've got your numbers mixed up. Gasoline made from coal (as well as gasoline made from natural gas and ethanol made from sugar cane) is price-competitive with gasoline made from oil only at oil prices of $40 a barrel and higher.

Answer 6

I think the alternative of oil is natural gas. It can cope with the shortage of oil caused due to disruption of supply from Gulf. It needs to be checked it the natural gas is available in sufficient quantity so that no shortage of oil is witnessed.

Answer 7

corn based fuel is still my best answer for making us not be dependent on oil. then we can move to other forms of energy such as hydrodgen and other electrical sources.

the biggest problem with coal (that i see) is the fact that we cannot safely remove it from the ground.

-eagle

Answer 8

I'm pretty sure these suggestions may cost less each time... But you would probably have to fill up much more frequently, causing you to pay more in the long run

Answer 9

Dimethylurinate

Answer 10

Nuclear-powered cars. Would be awesome until the first real bad wreck.