How can the world not rely so much on oil and rely on another fuel alternative?How does this affect oil-producing regions, i.e. the Middle East?
AHC: Prevent the Rise of Oil Consumption
- Thread starter TickTock The Witch's Dead
- Start date
There's pretty much no other way. Fossil fuels are incredibly cheap and energy-rich, and there aren't significant other alternatives. (Well, short of autarky and reliance upon coal conversion for strategic purposes, but there'd still be massive amounts of oil consumption, just not as much.)
China's oil consumption is only a small slice of the world as a whole.
China's oil consumption is only a small slice of the world as a whole.
No other fuel alternative is as energy-dense, as malleable, and as convenient as petroleum. I almost think you'd have to somehow butterfly away the Industrial Revolution to reduce/eliminate world reliance on oil. There's a reason other alternative fuels, such as alcohol and vegetable oil, fell by the wayside as oil and its products became more available.
Delta Force
Banned
Petroleum and other hydrocarbons are used for more than just energy. Fertilizers, plastics, medicines, and other petrochemicals rely on hydrocarbons of one kind or another. As the Shah of Iran once said, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn".
Could renewables be developed much earlier? Which one is most feasible?
Any renewable that can't match the low cost, convenience, and energy density of oil would fall by the wayside pretty quickly in a heads-up competition. That's why the original "renewable" fuels, alcohol and peanut oil, didn't last more than a few years despite support from the likes of Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel.
Delta Force
Banned
Nuclear is currently the most feasible source of alternative energy for the generation of baseload electric power. Of course, petroleum isn't used much for baseload energy generation since the energy crises.
There are some alternatives for vehicles. Historically, steam engines were an option. Electric vehicles are an option as well, they were historically used alongside steam engines, but fell out of favor due to their limited range. Options for internal combustion technology includes alcohol fuels and even hydrogen. In the 1970s there were attempts at building vehicles that used energy stored in flywheels, compressed air tanks, and similar systems. More recently, hydrogen fuel cells have emerged as a potential source of energy.
Large vehicles such as trains and ships could use nuclear power, although they would have the same issues with costs as nuclear power for electrical purposes.
There aren't many options for aircraft. Petroleum based fuels are simply the best for aircraft. In theory, if an aircraft is large enough or has to fly very long distances, a nuclear reactor could be used to power an aircraft at lower cost than with petroleum. However, aircraft are more risky in the event of an accident, especially given their operating environment.
Small slice? 2nd in the world in consumption, and twice as much as third place Japan?
That's not 'small' by any reasonable definition. Imo.
Solar, wind, geo-thermal, water-wheels, wave action, tidal action, etc. are still viable for isolated houses a long way from electrical mains.
Consider that a gallon of diesel fuel can cost $8,000 by the time it is shipped, piped, trucked, helicoptered, etc. to an isolated out-post in the Afghan mountains. Also consider the high cost of all those tanker trucks wrecked by road-side bombs.
Consider that a gallon of diesel fuel can cost $8,000 by the time it is shipped, piped, trucked, helicoptered, etc. to an isolated out-post in the Afghan mountains. Also consider the high cost of all those tanker trucks wrecked by road-side bombs.
1. Mass transit remains more acceptable to the general public, especially outside the Northeastern US. May require significant changes in civil rights struggle.
2. Energy alternatives first explored in the 1940s and 1970s reach fruition earlier (Algal sources of hydrocarbons, coal-to-gasoline, etc.)
3. Improved battery technologies make cars more efficient over the long-term, reference the combination of small gas engines and golf carts for "city cars"
4. Arcology development is promoted more and combination office-residential buildings actually take off
5. Green movement takes off in greater force with increased taxes on gasoline to promote alternative energy sources
2. Energy alternatives first explored in the 1940s and 1970s reach fruition earlier (Algal sources of hydrocarbons, coal-to-gasoline, etc.)
3. Improved battery technologies make cars more efficient over the long-term, reference the combination of small gas engines and golf carts for "city cars"
4. Arcology development is promoted more and combination office-residential buildings actually take off
5. Green movement takes off in greater force with increased taxes on gasoline to promote alternative energy sources
It would be and is absurd to use nuclear locomotives instead of electric trains powered by stationary nuclear reactors, like the French rail system. In exchange for a relatively small savings on rail infrastructure (after all, extensive and often rugged regions have been electrified historically, it clearly is not absurdly expensive), you add major costs in locomotive construction, operation, maintenance, and refueling, and immense related infrastructure costs. It just makes no sense.
Delta Force
Banned
Nuclear engines of various types would be a technically feasible option for trains, although they wouldn't necessarily be the most efficient. That was really meant more for anyone who might be looking at this for worldbuilding ideas.
It would be much more efficient to just have a large reactor that generates electricity than putting it on a train. The same goes for pretty much anything that can be easily attached to the power grid. Even more so for things like trains that have a set route that could just use an additional rail or some such to deliver power. Cars need very good batteries to make them work for electricity. Short range is not much problem but if you had to go any large distances you would quickly run in to many problems. Also as batteries get used they degrade just like everything else. And throwing more money and development at battery tech will not necessarily lead to better batteries. Oil and its derivatives remain dominant in transportation because of its easy use for engines and the ability to refill quickly and easily.
but 4+ times the population of the US and massively more than Japan ...
barrels per person per year wise the chionese use is small ...
Riain
Banned
There were a number of factors that were behind the streetcar scandal, legislation and the like, that set the scene for it to occur. If some of these key factors didn't pan out like otl then perhaps the USA would have a much more comprehensive set of mass transit systems and a correspondingly lower oil consumption.
It would probably need a Brit screw in the 20s and 30s so that Persian and Middle East oil was too much hassle to extract perhaps due to continuous anti British uprisings. So Europe expands the electrification of the railways and misses out on diesels and car ownership remains in the hands of the very wealthy. However oil is needed for plastics and other things so eventually there would be drilling for it but perhaps it wouldn't be as prevalent for transport and power generation.
However this would not affect the US as much.
However this would not affect the US as much.
What? If oil's not used much for energy and electricity, things should change!