You are right that oil will not actually run out. At some point the energy cost of extraction of the oil will exceed the energy of the fule. At this point the remaining oil will largely be left in the ground (although there will be some extraction for other oil based products perhaps).

But the fossil fuel reserves *are* limited.

Hydrogen from waste products is another source I did not mention, but it is a relatively small source. An important renewable, but insufficient for the massive demand if all vehicles moved to hydrogen power without a reduction in vehicle use.

Clean coal and other clean chemical technologies are clearly better for the environment, but do not deal with the issue I raised: that they consume capital reserves of energy – which by their nature are limited. It is bad management to spend your capital as though it were revenue.

Direct solar to hydrogen is mentioned above. It is done with a form of electrolysis, with electricty being generated through photovoltaic cells.

As I pointed out in my comments, I do see future for fuel cells as an enabling technology through mass production of renewable hydrogen. However, I don’t believe current usage is sustainable, and the technology is a long way off.

Thanks for your comment.

Stephen

For instance, there is direct solar-to-hydrogen, hydrogen from biogas (from landfills, industrial and farm waste), clean coal technology ala FutureGen with near-zero emissions and hydrogen from hydrogen-rich chemical compounds such as sodium borohydride.

The future lies in alternative ways to produce this alternative fuel.

Thanks for stopping by.

Stephen

I wanted to say I’m jealous of your header picture, Stephen! It’s beautiful. I might try this theme to see if it will accept more panoramic pics than the one I currently use. Do you have any tricks up your sleeve? :O)

Are you sure on your data about diminishing “fossil fuels”? I believe that I heard two different things that would confront that data.

1. That new data seems to point that it is renewable.
2. That it’s not necessarily a lack of oil, just that it will get harder to get at it, and therefore it will drive the cost up.

As far as generating energy– it seems that it’s more acceptable to burn coal for electricity than for propulsion, so that would be one plus on the hydrogen/ethanol camps.

In the U.S., the Mojave would be a suitable replacement for the Sahara.

Certain problems exist:

1. If you start collecting sea water, you have a hazard around the intake, and a filtration problem.

2. As you must pump to a point above sea level, you must use some energy to transport the water.

3. You would need a *lot* of dirigibles!

The risk of fire in the dirigibles is overstated by people remembering the Hindenberg disaster. The risk to the dirigible comes from the nature of the air frame rather than the gas it holds.

But this is one possible solution to the Hydrogen problem.

Unfortunately we are a long way from it, and even when we have it, it will not sustain our current levels of fossil fuel use I think (because of the hydrogen transportation problem).

Thanks for the comment.

I guess the only part of this that would seem reasonable is IF we could figure out how to expend less energy over time to create the hydrogen batteries or ethanol, or the engines of the new cars could expect to maintain a better consistency in usage such that it made it more feasible overtime, otherwise we are only having a symbolic item, rather than a substantive one.