|
|
Post by IBDaMann on Aug 28, 2020 15:55:24 GMT
Hydrocarbons, i.e. petroleum and natural gas, are produced deep in the earth's crust/upper mantle by natural geological processes and have nothing to do with fossils. In fact, fossils cannot be burned as fuel. The vast bulk of fossils are merely impressions in rock, i.e. there is nothing there. The vast bulk of the remainder are ossified and non-combustible. While the most profound depth for a fossil is just over 2km, almost all fossils reside relatively close to the surface, and for obvious reasons none are beneath impermeable rock. Hydrocarbons require intense heat (well in excess of 200°C/400°F) and pressure (in excess of 5 atm) to form. We know this because we have replicated the process in labs, called the Fischer-Tropsche process. Unfortunately it is rather expensive for us humans to fabricate hydrocarbons in a lab/factory and of course, we can only produce relatively small quantities, not many billions of barrels at a time like the earth does. The conditions required to form hydrocarbons exist miles deep in the crust where the petroleum and natural gas result from a natural Fischer-Tropsche reaction. They seep upward towards the surface until reaching impermeable rock where they accumulate into a well. Meanwhile, the fossil record, which extends from the surface down about a kilometer, and this includes forests and graveyards, is not full of petroleum and natural gas ... because hydrocarbons do not form from dead and decaying life forms. In places such as the Gulf of Mexico, there gaps in the layer of impermeable rock and there is much seepage into the ocean at that point. This is how oil companies knew to build lots of oil rigs in the Gulf, i.e. they saw the oil. |
|
|
|
Post by IBDaMann on Nov 7, 2021 19:12:20 GMT
Fossils are not used as fuel.
True.
Why replace any fuel? Again, it comes down to what people want to buy.
Each form of energy has its advantages and disadvantages for one reason or another.
Wood is a convenient as a nearby tree. It takes a lot of work to chop it down, buck it into logs, split and season those logs, and finally have something useful to burn in a fire or stove.
Coal is plentiful and cheap. It does take work to mine if, of course, but it's easily transported in bulk by train to industries that use it, both to fire their own boilers, maybe generate electricity, or as a component material for making steel. It is, however, messy to handle, being mostly pure carbon.
Oil is plentiful and cheap, and it's a renewable fuel. It can be distilled into many products, including gasoline, kerosene, various grades of fuel oils, asphaltum, acetone, benzine, butane, etc. These materials are more than just fuel. They are starting components for many plastics, dyes, explosives, lubricants, etc. Gasoline, kerosene, bunker oil, and diesel oil are both liquid fuels, making them ideal for mobile use such as cars, trucks, tractors, ships, locomotives, aircraft, etc. It is easily pumped around for internal combustion engines. Many portable gasoline powered devices such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws, etc can run all day by just refueling them and maintaining them. Oil is also used for some fixed power plants, but not much. It's disadvantage is that you generally have to drill for it and process it (distill it) before it's usable.
Natural gas is plentiful and cheap, and it is a renewable fuel. It's easily obtainable, but very hard to ship anywhere. Pipeline leaks are very easy to happen, and a buildup of this stuff can have explosive properties! It has no odor, is colorless, and clean burning. The lack of odor and color can make it quite hazardous to detect leaks, but it is easy to add an odorant to it. It is ideal for fixed use, such as homes and businesses. It provides instant heat on stovetops as opposed to electric stoves that must warm up before use. Since the entire plumbing system for distribution tends to be buried, it is safe from storm damage, but susceptible to damage from earth movement.
Propane is plentiful and cheap, and it is also a renewable fuel. It is produced as a byproduct of natural gas production. It is ideal for portable of fixed tanks. It has many of the advantages of natural gas, and can also be shipped in liquid form for use. It's disadvantage is that it's more expensive per watt than natural gas. It is ideal, however for portable BBQs, home heating where natural gas lines are not available, and is clean burning (little soot).
Hydroelectric plants require a waterfall to be efficient enough. You can make a waterfall using a dam, but these projects are large and can only be constructed in limited places. They carry the risk of the associated dam collapsing. A few have been constructed at natural waterfalls such as Niagara Falls, or Snoqualmie Falls (a local waterfall in Washington on the Snoqualmie river). These are solar powered devices. They are great for fixed power plants. They do not work obviously for portable power. Another advantage can be the dam itself, which can also provide water for irrigation, homes, or recreation, and can also be used to control river flow for rivers known to be dangerous (such as the Colorado river).
Nuclear power (fission) require only small amounts of fuel to work and produce no exhaust during operation. Spent fuel can be used in reactors of a different design and still used to produce power (though more expensively). The risk is handling the fuel. It is not easy to ship or load into the machine. The spent product is still hazardous. Plant accidents are rare, but can produce hazards over large areas, and can be difficult to repair. Due to the technical risks and heavy shielding involved, it is suitable only for fixed power plant use.
Nuclear power (fusion) is not available yet. It's waste product is also hazardous, but this hazard dissipates relatively quickly (about 12 years) compared to fission waste products. It will be suitable only for fixed power plant use, again due to the weight and complexity of such a reactor. No fusion reactor has ever produced a sustained energy source. Modern nuclear bombs are fusion bombs, so we know fusion is possible. The trick is to get it to operate as a sustainable and usable form of energy. There are several companies working on this. The required fuel is deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). This can be obtained from water through the use of centrifuges and electrolysis. Both of these require power, which detracts from the fusion power you get. Mashing these nuclei together despite the forces preventing it also require a lot of power.
Wind power is as old as sailboats on the Nile. It is not reliable as an energy source though. It changes direction, it blows too hard or too soft (or even not at all!), but it doesn't require burning anything. Wind generators, from wind mills in the Netherlands (used to mill grain and/or pump water), or modern wind generators (used to pump water or generate small amounts of electricity) all depend on some sort of propeller. These devices are subject to problems of frost imbalance, damage from the weather, etc. They can only operate within limited ranges of wind. Their advantage is that they are great for remote locations where you have sustained usable winds, and you need to pump water or generate small amounts of electricity. They are expensive, watt for watt, to other forms of energy. This form of power is usable at sea, but it requires constant maintenance for the sails, can be quite fickle, and for larger ships requires a large crew just to handle the sails.
Solar power has already been discussed in the form of hydroelectric power. Direct conversion is also used (using solar cells or salt furnaces). This method of generating electricity is VERY expensive for the power produced. It can be useful in remote locations for generating small amounts of power though. You will find such panels on RV's, remote sensing equipment, and along highways generating power for electronic signage. Another disadvantage is nighttime, when there is no Sun visible to power these things. You can store up power during the day (ballasting), but that power is not available for other uses during the day. Methods of storage tend to be expensive.
Tidal stations generating power are a bit like the liquid form of wind power. Options to build these are rare, however, due to geology required to anchor the plant and obtain usable flow through it. Seawater is also corrosive on equipment, making it difficult to maintain. Tides also ebb and flood, so this form of power is not consistent. It is a very expensive method of producing electric power.
Similar problems occur with geothermal plants. The corrosion problem is not as bad, but suitable locations for building such plants are rare.
Fossils are not used anywhere. They simply don't burn.
|
|
