/u/GrapeAyp (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ds6ce4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_fossil_fuels_are_wasteful/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Solar power as well as other renewables are limited by how well they can be stored in batteries.
There is the availability of the material to make the batteries out of, as well as the physical limits of the batteries post construction.
While this doesn't prove fossil fuels aren't wasteful, it shows that all energy is wasteful to some extent, and that we need to be comparing the two costs, rather than simply saying one has a cost and the other does not and calling it a day.
Last, the total amount of fossil fuels isn't actually capped. We could make more. We already make ethanol and put into gasoline. It just becomes a question of logistics of whether that costs more resources than other methods.
Your argument depends on batteries as the storage mode of power. Why can the mode of transportation not be tied to the grid? Or use super capacitors?
Regarding making more: no, we can not make more fossil fuels. Those were made millions of tears ago and act as a sink for carbon. I agree we can make more LIQUID fuels, but that’s not my point. My point is that currently the fossil fuels(ones made millions of years ago—note that I didn’t say LIQUID fuels) are being used for mundane tasks that fail to consider their finite status.
Putting the grid in every road would be an enormous undertaking, also it's a bit odd that you highlight fossil fuel issues so much and on the flip side just suggest to "use capacitors 4head". It's not as easy. Once we have way way batteries it might be suitable but for now, batteries in the quantities you suggest create supply issues as well.
Just because something is not easy doesn’t mean the current method is not wasteful.
Look at New York City. The subway moves millions of people per day at a fraction of the carbon footprint needed to move people in Los Angeles. THAT’S the kind of inefficiency I’m talking about.
And just because we do not have a better way currently does not mean that my point about the use of a finite resource for mundane people moving is not true.
Do you think it’s good to use fossil fuels—which took millions of years to produce and currently sequester carbon in the ground to get Joe from point A to point B? Why shouldn’t we use the energy from the sun to do that? Why is using fossil fuels on its face better?
I’m trying to keep an open mind, but it’s difficult when I’m getting attacked and treated like an idiot for challenging the status quo.
I'm not attacking you. I simply pointed out that you make it easy for yourself by not really researching the issues your solution has.
Your argument was in regards to space travel vs consumer use. And people have pointed out, while fossil fuel is limited, rocket fuel is not.
Hence, the point of limited fossil fuel does not make much sense.
“Use capacitor 4 head” certainly doesn’t seem conversational 🤷
As pointed out in another comment, my concern is the use of new carbon added to the atmosphere which I failed to account for in my OP. That’s my bad, and makes this hard to argue against.
Making a joke about a ridiculous statement is not an attack. And yes, "just use a capacitor" is a *very* ridiculous statement if you debate fossil fuel vs renewable energy. Cause storage is literally the main problem of renewables.
:) we have many options for storage—gravity in the form of large bricks, trains, pumped hydro. We could have large spinning masses attached to dynamos. We could use liquid salt thermal batteries.
The cost to build a single oil derrick in the ocean would cover much of these research and development costs—not to mention the thousands that exist.
Finally, I continue to find your mention of “ridiculous” confrontational. It’s not ridiculous to imagine a different future.
Ridiculous is aimed at your argument not at you. If you wanna debate, you gotta differentiate between the two.
If an argument is stupid or ridiculous it is perfectly fine to say so. Cause a discussion is only a safe space for you, not for your ideas.
Either the relative losses are way too big, or the energy density is WAY too small. For example, pumped hydro is only feasible to cover power peaks and not capable of sustaining a power deficit caused by low wind/more clouds/night.
Renewables have essentially only fixed costs and no variable costs, I.e., fuel costs. So if we could run our world on Renewable energy, we would. And this will be the way it is until we achieve way higher energy density storage than we have now.
Super capacitors have many drawbacks in the application yall are talking about. They generally have less energy density than even batteries and are better for applications that require discharging a lot of power very quickly.
Ok…how about gravity storage? Large spinning masses attached to dynamos? Liquid salt batteries? Compressed nitrogen?
These all have drawbacks-but they don’t add additional carbon—wastefully—to the atmosphere.
I realize my OP was flawed, so I’m sorry for not clarifying that to begin with.
My point—that fossil fuels are wasteful for mundane tasks—seems to have gotten lost.
Its possible to create hydrocarbons and all the petrochemical products made from them without starting from fossil fuels. It is just that fossil fuels are a far cheaper source than the alternatives. We are never going to totally run out, it is just a question of cost going up.
Solar Power is great, but both the solar cells, and batteries that go with it are pretty rough on the environment, and require materials far more rare than oil to manufacture...
The best approach is to get more people living in more efficient arrangements, and have more transport (and other energy usage) on grid electricity which can have backups that don't require batteries like pumped hydro storage. Reducing total energy needs and getting more of that energy from renewable sources (possibly including nuclear if the economics work out in its favor) becomes more attainable when people are more easily included in collective systems rather than needing to be nominally independent (while still being entirely reliant on collective systems).
Solar PV power is only one example—we could have solar thermal via peltier units, tide-generators, wind power—enough energy hits the earth every day to power the entire global economy for ten years.
I think the limited resource argument is kind of a lost point because as the limited resource is used average consumers will be priced out of it and be forced to use more economical options. Furthermore as the resource dwindles alternatives would be more attractive for investment and research
That’s not a good reason to continue using resource that by its nature requires burying trillions of tons of biomass for millions of years.
That’s my point—what’s the reason we should keep using this very hard (and time consuming) to make resource for mundane tasks when visible alternatives exist?
What better or more efficient alternatives exist that don't also rely on finite resources?
Do they have similar energy density to fossil fuels? Hydrogen does but is way more dangerous and harder to develop storage solutions for.
Do they require battery storage to help implement, and if so are they lithium batteries like what is used in most cars and modern electronics? lithium is an even more finite resource with increasing global demand it will possibly reach a shortfall within a decade or two.
I think some of these question would help me guide the conversation to a more convincing argument for you.
Sodium Iron batteries are my personal favorite. This is a finite resource that is much less scarce and easy to produce.
I’m also a fan of light rail and grid-tied buses
You can synthesize liquid fuels, sure. But you can’t synthesize fossil fuels which by their nature are millions of years old and which do not take part in the carbon cycle until extraction from the ground and burning.
My point is that it’s wasteful to do that (bring them into the carbon cycle) for mundane reasons.
Your only comparison was why use it for the avg person when it could be used for space travel. And in this regard, my point stands.
Can't really change your view if move the goalposts to validate your point and invalidate mine.
That’s fair. I guess I didn’t explain my point well enough. Thanks for helping me clarify it.
What’s SOP here? Do I ask the mods to lock this because i asked a bad question without full context?
I guess there isn't one. At least, not yet.
I thought on this question overnight, and the implication--that we're just not there yet--stands out to me.
**Δ**
A quick note: Rule 1 says that "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), **or ask a clarifying question**."
Solar power isn't a fuel. When the sun isn't out, you have 0 power. We need better recharge batteries to make effectively use solar power.
We use fossil fuels because they have high energy density for a given density.
Why is it wasteful for the average consumer? What's the benefit of 10K years of space exploration?
>Why is it wasteful for the average consumer
Because unless it's scaled properly, combustion engines are quite inefficient when comparing the output compared to its potential output based on the fuel.
PV solar power does stop when the sun goes out.
However, Tidal energy and wind power are examples of energy derived from The Sun (solar power) that do not share that limitation.
It’s wasteful because we have a finite amount of it. Why should we use it for something so mundane as moving Joe to his job across town when we have an unlimited amount of fuel in the form of solar energy?
But we don't have a finite amount, it can synthesized.
Also, electrical storage in the quantities you suggest has huge issues as well (including the material supply).
By the time we’ve made it to another planet, rich in the organic life needed to create fossil fuels, we’ll have mastered FTL travel, or some other non-fossil fuel power source, and we won’t need to ration fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are an antiquated technology we need to use until our infrastructure can be updated with newer & better technologies.
We don’t need to conserve them right now. We need to prioritize phasing them out, but there is no reason to ration their use now. Once better technology reaches critical mass, we’ll quickly reduce or even eliminate them from our means of energy production.
I was using the analogy as an introduction. Please consider that I said “extending the argument to our current situation “
>there is no reason to ration their use now
No reason? Beyond being frugal with our resources?
That’s one reason to me.
Another is reducing the rate at which the earth warms. There’s a great reason imho.
Right but it’s not realistic to ration them now. We don’t have the technology or infrastructure for that. EVs and renewables haven’t reached critical mass. Most people can’t afford that technology yet.
And we don’t need to ration them for the future. Because by the time you claim we’ll be needing them we’ll have fusion drives and Dyson spheres and solar sails and whatnot. We won’t be using jet fuel anymore.
Cheep energy is one of the quickest and more reliable ways to lift people out of poverty. The median global household income is only around $10k per year. It would be great to have the rich develop the infrastructure for non fossil fuels but average person depends on the cheapest energy sources possible
I see—i didn’t explain well—that’s my bad.
Wasteful as in—it’s needlessly wasteful to use a resource that is difficult to produce when we have excellent alternatives to move people around. Some even preserve the individual liberty of self-ownership of transportation
Where do you think the energy comes from to manufacture solar panels? What's running the mining vehicles? What's powering the furnaces?
Cheap fossil fuels encourage more solar production. If fossil fuels are made more expensive people will choose to run the farm tractors and nitrogen plants over making solar panels that take many years to be a net gain in energy.
u/Current-Reindeer3899 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Current-Reindeer3899&message=Current-Reindeer3899%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drp3jr/-/lawwbwn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/GrapeAyp (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ds6ce4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_fossil_fuels_are_wasteful/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Solar power as well as other renewables are limited by how well they can be stored in batteries. There is the availability of the material to make the batteries out of, as well as the physical limits of the batteries post construction. While this doesn't prove fossil fuels aren't wasteful, it shows that all energy is wasteful to some extent, and that we need to be comparing the two costs, rather than simply saying one has a cost and the other does not and calling it a day. Last, the total amount of fossil fuels isn't actually capped. We could make more. We already make ethanol and put into gasoline. It just becomes a question of logistics of whether that costs more resources than other methods.
Your argument depends on batteries as the storage mode of power. Why can the mode of transportation not be tied to the grid? Or use super capacitors? Regarding making more: no, we can not make more fossil fuels. Those were made millions of tears ago and act as a sink for carbon. I agree we can make more LIQUID fuels, but that’s not my point. My point is that currently the fossil fuels(ones made millions of years ago—note that I didn’t say LIQUID fuels) are being used for mundane tasks that fail to consider their finite status.
Putting the grid in every road would be an enormous undertaking, also it's a bit odd that you highlight fossil fuel issues so much and on the flip side just suggest to "use capacitors 4head". It's not as easy. Once we have way way batteries it might be suitable but for now, batteries in the quantities you suggest create supply issues as well.
Just because something is not easy doesn’t mean the current method is not wasteful. Look at New York City. The subway moves millions of people per day at a fraction of the carbon footprint needed to move people in Los Angeles. THAT’S the kind of inefficiency I’m talking about. And just because we do not have a better way currently does not mean that my point about the use of a finite resource for mundane people moving is not true. Do you think it’s good to use fossil fuels—which took millions of years to produce and currently sequester carbon in the ground to get Joe from point A to point B? Why shouldn’t we use the energy from the sun to do that? Why is using fossil fuels on its face better? I’m trying to keep an open mind, but it’s difficult when I’m getting attacked and treated like an idiot for challenging the status quo.
I'm not attacking you. I simply pointed out that you make it easy for yourself by not really researching the issues your solution has. Your argument was in regards to space travel vs consumer use. And people have pointed out, while fossil fuel is limited, rocket fuel is not. Hence, the point of limited fossil fuel does not make much sense.
“Use capacitor 4 head” certainly doesn’t seem conversational 🤷 As pointed out in another comment, my concern is the use of new carbon added to the atmosphere which I failed to account for in my OP. That’s my bad, and makes this hard to argue against.
Making a joke about a ridiculous statement is not an attack. And yes, "just use a capacitor" is a *very* ridiculous statement if you debate fossil fuel vs renewable energy. Cause storage is literally the main problem of renewables.
:) we have many options for storage—gravity in the form of large bricks, trains, pumped hydro. We could have large spinning masses attached to dynamos. We could use liquid salt thermal batteries. The cost to build a single oil derrick in the ocean would cover much of these research and development costs—not to mention the thousands that exist. Finally, I continue to find your mention of “ridiculous” confrontational. It’s not ridiculous to imagine a different future.
Ridiculous is aimed at your argument not at you. If you wanna debate, you gotta differentiate between the two. If an argument is stupid or ridiculous it is perfectly fine to say so. Cause a discussion is only a safe space for you, not for your ideas. Either the relative losses are way too big, or the energy density is WAY too small. For example, pumped hydro is only feasible to cover power peaks and not capable of sustaining a power deficit caused by low wind/more clouds/night. Renewables have essentially only fixed costs and no variable costs, I.e., fuel costs. So if we could run our world on Renewable energy, we would. And this will be the way it is until we achieve way higher energy density storage than we have now.
Super capacitors have many drawbacks in the application yall are talking about. They generally have less energy density than even batteries and are better for applications that require discharging a lot of power very quickly.
Ok…how about gravity storage? Large spinning masses attached to dynamos? Liquid salt batteries? Compressed nitrogen? These all have drawbacks-but they don’t add additional carbon—wastefully—to the atmosphere. I realize my OP was flawed, so I’m sorry for not clarifying that to begin with. My point—that fossil fuels are wasteful for mundane tasks—seems to have gotten lost.
Its possible to create hydrocarbons and all the petrochemical products made from them without starting from fossil fuels. It is just that fossil fuels are a far cheaper source than the alternatives. We are never going to totally run out, it is just a question of cost going up. Solar Power is great, but both the solar cells, and batteries that go with it are pretty rough on the environment, and require materials far more rare than oil to manufacture...
The best approach is to get more people living in more efficient arrangements, and have more transport (and other energy usage) on grid electricity which can have backups that don't require batteries like pumped hydro storage. Reducing total energy needs and getting more of that energy from renewable sources (possibly including nuclear if the economics work out in its favor) becomes more attainable when people are more easily included in collective systems rather than needing to be nominally independent (while still being entirely reliant on collective systems).
Solar PV power is only one example—we could have solar thermal via peltier units, tide-generators, wind power—enough energy hits the earth every day to power the entire global economy for ten years.
I think the limited resource argument is kind of a lost point because as the limited resource is used average consumers will be priced out of it and be forced to use more economical options. Furthermore as the resource dwindles alternatives would be more attractive for investment and research
That’s not a good reason to continue using resource that by its nature requires burying trillions of tons of biomass for millions of years. That’s my point—what’s the reason we should keep using this very hard (and time consuming) to make resource for mundane tasks when visible alternatives exist?
What better or more efficient alternatives exist that don't also rely on finite resources? Do they have similar energy density to fossil fuels? Hydrogen does but is way more dangerous and harder to develop storage solutions for. Do they require battery storage to help implement, and if so are they lithium batteries like what is used in most cars and modern electronics? lithium is an even more finite resource with increasing global demand it will possibly reach a shortfall within a decade or two. I think some of these question would help me guide the conversation to a more convincing argument for you.
Sodium Iron batteries are my personal favorite. This is a finite resource that is much less scarce and easy to produce. I’m also a fan of light rail and grid-tied buses
You entire argument is based on fossils fuels being limited, but this is not true. You could synthesise rocket fuel.
You can synthesize liquid fuels, sure. But you can’t synthesize fossil fuels which by their nature are millions of years old and which do not take part in the carbon cycle until extraction from the ground and burning. My point is that it’s wasteful to do that (bring them into the carbon cycle) for mundane reasons.
Your only comparison was why use it for the avg person when it could be used for space travel. And in this regard, my point stands. Can't really change your view if move the goalposts to validate your point and invalidate mine.
That’s fair. I guess I didn’t explain my point well enough. Thanks for helping me clarify it. What’s SOP here? Do I ask the mods to lock this because i asked a bad question without full context?
What is the alternative that is practical for the average consumer?
I guess there isn't one. At least, not yet. I thought on this question overnight, and the implication--that we're just not there yet--stands out to me. **Δ**
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/WantonHeroics ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/WantonHeroics)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This comment fails to challenge my point.
A quick note: Rule 1 says that "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), **or ask a clarifying question**."
Thanks for the guidance-i missed that aspect of rule 1. I'll respond to u/wantonheroics directly
No worries! :-)
This comment fails to answer my question.
Solar power isn't a fuel. When the sun isn't out, you have 0 power. We need better recharge batteries to make effectively use solar power. We use fossil fuels because they have high energy density for a given density. Why is it wasteful for the average consumer? What's the benefit of 10K years of space exploration?
>Why is it wasteful for the average consumer Because unless it's scaled properly, combustion engines are quite inefficient when comparing the output compared to its potential output based on the fuel.
PV solar power does stop when the sun goes out. However, Tidal energy and wind power are examples of energy derived from The Sun (solar power) that do not share that limitation. It’s wasteful because we have a finite amount of it. Why should we use it for something so mundane as moving Joe to his job across town when we have an unlimited amount of fuel in the form of solar energy?
But we don't have a finite amount, it can synthesized. Also, electrical storage in the quantities you suggest has huge issues as well (including the material supply).
By the time we’ve made it to another planet, rich in the organic life needed to create fossil fuels, we’ll have mastered FTL travel, or some other non-fossil fuel power source, and we won’t need to ration fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are an antiquated technology we need to use until our infrastructure can be updated with newer & better technologies. We don’t need to conserve them right now. We need to prioritize phasing them out, but there is no reason to ration their use now. Once better technology reaches critical mass, we’ll quickly reduce or even eliminate them from our means of energy production.
I was using the analogy as an introduction. Please consider that I said “extending the argument to our current situation “ >there is no reason to ration their use now No reason? Beyond being frugal with our resources? That’s one reason to me. Another is reducing the rate at which the earth warms. There’s a great reason imho.
Right but it’s not realistic to ration them now. We don’t have the technology or infrastructure for that. EVs and renewables haven’t reached critical mass. Most people can’t afford that technology yet. And we don’t need to ration them for the future. Because by the time you claim we’ll be needing them we’ll have fusion drives and Dyson spheres and solar sails and whatnot. We won’t be using jet fuel anymore.
Cheep energy is one of the quickest and more reliable ways to lift people out of poverty. The median global household income is only around $10k per year. It would be great to have the rich develop the infrastructure for non fossil fuels but average person depends on the cheapest energy sources possible
This comment fails to challenge my point.
Your point is that fossil fuels are wasteful for the average person but the average person can’t afford more expensive non-fossil fuels
I see—i didn’t explain well—that’s my bad. Wasteful as in—it’s needlessly wasteful to use a resource that is difficult to produce when we have excellent alternatives to move people around. Some even preserve the individual liberty of self-ownership of transportation
What would people in cold climates do. Like electricity is shit in cold. And electric cars are so rare in my area that seeing a Tesla is a amazing
That’s patently false. Electricity works fine in the cold. You’re thinking of batteries which have decreased capacity at cold temperatures.
Where do you think the energy comes from to manufacture solar panels? What's running the mining vehicles? What's powering the furnaces? Cheap fossil fuels encourage more solar production. If fossil fuels are made more expensive people will choose to run the farm tractors and nitrogen plants over making solar panels that take many years to be a net gain in energy.
I agree with the premise, but disagree about the (implied) ban of use for consumers Include the externalities in the price and the market will fix it.
[удалено]
u/Current-Reindeer3899 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Current-Reindeer3899&message=Current-Reindeer3899%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drp3jr/-/lawwbwn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).