Burning fossil fuels released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, polluting and warming the planet. One solution is to quit burning fossil fuels and rely on renewable energies like solar and wind. Unfortunately, liquid fuels are the most efficient for long-distance transportation because the long-distance infrastructure for electricity costs too much. A subsequent solution is to use renewable energy to pull the carbon back out of the atmosphere and convert it back into fuel. Rather than just reducing emissions and waiting for nature to clean the atmosphere, we could take a much more active role, potentially cleaning up the mess we made.
(Click on the image for the link.)
I’m wondering if you have a source on this comment: “”” because the long-distance infrastructure for electricity costs too much. “”” If so, please share it. Otherwise, I respectfully disagree—this is a message that the oil industry wants us to believe and share—that there is no alternative.
The public keeps subsidizing fossil fuel corporations, meanwhile we have not invested in EV infrastructure. The oil industry spends millions on political campaigns and spreading disinformation and bad science which counters progress further.
Also, there is electrical transmission all over the country in every business, home, and highway where there are street lights or traffic signals, so the long distance aspect is generally covered, we just need the charging ports hooked up. In just a few short years, there are thousands of charging ports in Seattle and the Central Puget Sound region, and all up and down the West coast, funded by the public, by businesses, and by private individuals.
And then there are the co-benefits, which could/should be explored. Point-source emissions from burning these fuels lead to all kinds of health and environmental effects, asthma most notably.
Good catch. Can’t point to a specific source – come to think of it, can’t point to data either way. An opportnuity! Any grad students out there hunting for a systems engineering topic? Go for it. What are the life cycle comparisons between the proposed CO2 to liquid fuel concept, all electric interstate and inter-city, and existing infrastructure. My guess is that for smaller vehicles in specific corridors, electric works; but when trying to attain 100% coverage there will be a point where the last few percent require liquid fuel. I doubt that the answer is all or that the answer is nothing; but that there’s an intermediary point. Now, you have me wondering where that is. Ah, to be back in grad school…
Pingback: Turning Pollution Back Into Fuel | Pretending Not To Panic | WORLD ORGANIC NEWS