• ColeSloth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Within 25 years it’s mostly going away anyhow in the passenger vehicle market. Within 25 years there’s no way its going away for ships and planes. Possibly not for commercial trucks, and not completely for ag either. Certainly not the military. Then theres all the smaller uses and other oils needed and propane and whatnot from it, but that’s getting into relatively small potatoes.

    But anyone thinking the world can manage to just ban oil over the next 25 years and everyone is going to agree to it, you’re far too simple minded and naive.

    • nexusband@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      And anyone arguing against banning fossile fuels has no idea what has been achieved with synthetic fuels. Fossile fuels will get extremely expensive in most European countries due to co2 taxes, making synthetic fuels with a negative co2 footprint extremely cheap. And a negative co2 footprint is pretty easy to achieve. Putting 5% more of the co2 needed for 1 liter in the ground, pulls it from the atmosphere, so 1 liter of synthetic fuel can have net negative co2 emissions - which would be a tax incentive, making the fuel cheaper.

      • ColeSloth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Then you’d know it’s not possible to make enough synthetic fuel to supply current demand.

        • nexusband@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          It is. But it would need all world governments to unite - so theoretically absolutely possible (remember CFCs?), practically I’m this environment? No.

          So you need countries to “go the long way” doing it now up to 2030 (so production capacity can ramp up) and simply forcing the fossile competition out of the market by being cheaper.

          • ColeSloth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Man, I think you need to read up and understand the processes on how synthetic fuel is actually made. Because it takes a massive amount of energy to make the stuff. The only carbon neutral way to do it would take even more energy. It’s only going to be scalable to a replacement of gasoline level if you start strapping nuclear power plants to all the hydrolysis and carbon air capture machines you’d need.

            • nexusband@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              You should keep up with developments ;) There are a number of different ways to produce “synthetic” fuels, specifically from special plants, that grow in very difficult environments (like deserts), there’s also different algae plants in scale testing (Mexico has some of the largest) and so on.

              Apart from that, the argument that it needs huge amounts of power is pretty mute.