Could the fossil fuels be made obsolete today?

Question

If we choose to do it, do we have the technology available to us today to completely replace fossil fuel as an energy source without drastically affecting our standard of living?

Answer 1

We have the technology, in some cases it needs improving to become more economic, but that will happen as more and more of it is used. But even with 100% political will, it will still take time. There is simply too much of it to change. Building all those replacement power plants, replacing all those cars...it takes time.



Replacing fossil fuels as an energy source would NOT stop us using fossil fuels as raw materials to make plastics etc. That is a different story and mixing it in here if deliberate confusion.



Human society has become very energy dependent. We can easily reduce tha amount of energy we use without compromising our chosen life style. Eg Europeans use considerably less energy than Americans [on average] and Japanese even less than Europeans, yet all have very affluent life styles.



We have become very used to ridiculously cheap energy. And in using fossil fuels we have not been paying their full cost. Our children and their children will bear the costs that we have refused and are still refusing to pay. So if we are decent right minded world citizens then we need to get real and make the change to renewables. The technology already exists. Don't let people fool you into believing it is not possible. Between solar, wind, bio fuels, geothermal, tidal, hydro, wave, ocean thermal, and others there is far more energy than we currently use, orders of magnitude more. None of them require technology we don't already possess to exploit.



Certainly we can do better than we do, certainly some of those technologies can improve, but they won't unless we start using them.



I'm somewhat glad that Americans in their arrogance are not embracing the renewables concept. They and their economy will be left behind as a relic of a bygone era. Other more dynamic economies are moving forward in leaps and bounds, renewing their economies, creating new jobs, new industries and new wealth. Leave the deniers to their fate. They can enjoy the derelict industries of the fossil fuel era.



Why even waste breath on responding to their religious babble? [Oil of good, CO2 is God's gift to man, science is evil, a warming planet is a good planet, it is god's will......blah blah blah]

Answer 2

The question is not "Could..."? but "When..."

At the same time that most countries recognize that ALL fossil and wood fuels must be banned for the human race to survive, we reached the peak level of production of oil, give or take a year.

From now on, oil production will only go down because 1. It is being replaced by renewable sources and 2. It is running out, that is, the "Peak Oil" production rate was reached last year, or this year, which will keep the price of oil high and promote the switch to renewable fuels.

By the way, Nuclear energy is NOT a renewable resource.

Note: Offshore windmills are sprouting in all the waters, like weeds. This industry is taking off, just as the USA watches and talks and watches and talks and does little, or less. Sad. I guess our getup and go, like they say, got up and went. Not to worry, Denmark and Australia will come and show us.

Answer 3

By 'today' I will assume you mean within a couple of years, there are in fact two fully electric cars about to be released by Mitsubishi and Nissan, if they are popular then they could take of fairly quickly as they charge from a standard power point. Deniers will usually try to play the "that still produces CO2" card, but the fact is because the electric engine is far more efficient than the gasoline engine the electric engines emissions to cover a similar distance are only ~25% those of the gasoline engine and that is if the source of the electricity is coal based, if the electricity is sourced from Hydro or Nuclear or renewable's then CO2 emissions are far lower than that.

Hydrogen is the other option, Honda already have a working vehicle (the Clarity), but the short term draw back is not the vehicle but the infrastructure to fuel it, it has taken us close to 100 years to build gasoline infrastructure and it would take many years to swap over, hydrogen offers the full practicality of petrol (i.e range and quick refuel) and I think will be the long term option.

Answer 4

The transition to alternative energy will be, and is, a process. It is an enormous transition, and the transition itself requires energy. So, the ironic thing is, in order to become energy independent and replace fossil fuels we will need to continue using them for awhile. Obviously, the more technology that is developed and the more that alternative energy is included into the grid, the less fossil fuels will be needed.

Answer 5

Yes and no

Everything in the chain of economic activity has become so dependent on fossil fuel that the already existing technologies such as perpetual motion machines that runs on magnets and Nicolai Tesla created electricity generation from the ether cannot be introduced without eliminating many jobs.

Although it can be done in a very period of time there is no will to do it.

People have been eliminated by the oil industry such as Stanley Meier because of their threat to the industry from their unique technology.

Many free energy generation devices have been sitting in the back shelf rusting away for decades because the big oil have either bought the patents our or assassinated people who weren't willing to co-operate with them.

These devices pose such a threat to the big oil companies that they'll do anything to protect their interests.

Thermal, solar, hybrid, hydrogen, wind, wave, biomass, biofuels, nuclear, coal, fossil fuel derived energies are always inadequate to serve the needs of the growing masses of people.

Energies derived from the qantum vacuum field or free energy is already a reality and we can immediately get off oil and coal if they were introduced.

Can you imagine how much money the controllers spend on military industrial complex as this industry needs massive amounts of money to perpetuate itself.

Its all about power and money.



http://www.cheniere.org/

www.disclosureproject.org

Answer 6

Its definitely possible although our government and the people who live on our planet would rather just stick with whats going on now. Rather then make a change to cleaner, less expensive energies that would with out a doubt improve our standard of living they are lazy and negligent to change. Although it would be expensive and time consuming to switch once the switch is made i dont think that we would ever look back again.

Answer 7

No. Impossible to do so without turning us into cave men.



Think about it. We run all of our vehicles on oil. Cut it out right away, not using a single drop. We'd have to cycle or walk around our countries. Mail would stop, food supply would be nil. If we're lucky enough to get our energy from a nearby wind farm, you'll have power, the rest won't. They can't keep warm, they can't refrigerate food. No electricity. Water supply would slow since it passes through treatment plants than need energy to pump it to our houses.



Without that energy & pump, we'd have no running water.



We depend on it more than you think.

Answer 8

Not without affecting your standard of living greatly.



You yourself would have to spend significant sums of money to replace many of the items you use today. Your furnace for one; not to mention finding and paying for the replacement of many items currently produced from natural gas, crude oil, or coal. None of that happens without economic impact. You would have to go back to glass for packaging of many items, because you would have to replace those plastics that replaced glass decades ago in the name of fuel savings. You would have to deal with that aspect too. Your food costs would be greatly higher- potentially 10 times more than you pay now.



Weather does not always cooperate for harvesting crops, so as a result, a lot of fuel is used to dry the crops otherwise they mold and rot.



Nuclear is not the panacea many want you to believe it is either. Accidents, greed, profit etc will make any plant only as safe as greed will allow it to be made. Plus there is no storage facility for high grade nuclear waste in the US.



The bottom line is simple- it would cost you greatly out of pocket to replace all the items in your home that use or were made from fossil fuels. Including many food additives, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Due to the nature of things, rationing would be the result for many things.



While it may sound good on the surface- look at the situation a lot deeper and you will find many things you really did not think about before as being impacted simply because they are not "immediate" in your life.



Many tout breakthroughs, but there really is nothing large scale available today except for wishes.

Answer 9

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/resources



Provides a "blueprint" for converting Australia to renewable energy in 10 years using existing technology only.



Economically feasible?? Questionable ...



In 10 years ... with our government ... impossible (taken 10 years to change over to digital TV and now giving us another 3 years just in case) ... as if they could do this in 10 years then!!



There is the technology currently to do it ... but at huge costs!



I personally believe a more decentralised system for energy would be a better option ...

Answer 10

Yes, but that is not going to happen as long as fossil fuels are cheaper than alternative energy

Answer 11

No it can't be done with today's technology.

Answer 12

Yes. I'm ready to go in my own fart powered car. All I need is for the auto industry to start installing @ss tubes in their cars.

Answer 13

YES...