Energy policy is only related in that the energy used to run cars and airplanes involves shuffling electrons around in chemical bonds, but it's what he's thinking about these days. For many purposes, we shuffle the electrons by burning hydrocarbons, which are useful because they have a fantastic energy density. Batteries can provide electrons for a number of uses, like short-distance road transit, but they simply don't have an energy:mass ratio that's compatible with things like aircraft or long-distance travel, and Laughlin didn't think they were likely to get there.
Biofuels might be a partial replacement, but he was unwilling to make a bet on a technology that might ultimately compete with food supplies. Hydrogen, when compressed, can have a decent energy density, but its high-pressure storage and explosive tendencies make it a very iffy choice for things like aircraft.
Laughlin made an explicit comparison between the slow-burn of jet fuel, which has enabled some orderly evacuations of aircraft, to the explosive demise of the Hindenburg. In essence, he suggested, the best way to store hydrogen for use in transportation is as a hydrocarbon.
And, give or take the errors in various sources, we've only got about 60 years of liquid hydrocarbons left—assuming we're willing to accept the climate consequences of burning it all.
One alternative would be to find a way to do without some of the things we currently rely on hydrocarbons for. Laughlin seemed to be giving his talk with the assumption that the electric grid, if needed, could be transitioned to something else. But he and most of his audience was skeptical that we'd be willing to do without cars. He said that in conversations around the world in many different cultures, the universals tended to be worries about a person's home, their children's' education, and getting a nicer car.
He just doesn't see people giving up on that sort of autonomous personal mobility, nor did he expect that electric vehicles being able to fully handle all the driving needed. In the s, the Germans used coal. Today, several plants are coming online that start with natural gas instead of coal for a better carbon footprint.
A couple of the largest are a Shell facility in Malasia and one in Qatar. In the future, there will be other feeds, such as plant materials. But a combination of sources, perhaps including saltwater-grown plants, could get us there in the relatively near term.
The big problem is the initial capital cost. Ultimately, predicts Laughlin, we will learn how to reclaim carbon from air. That carbon could feed into a modified Fischer-Trophsch process.
A slide show, Discoveries Energy , covers another Lindau initiative, a museum exhibit on energy sources. The views expressed are those of the author s and are not necessarily those of Scientific American. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature. Fossil fuels coal, oil and gas are finite — consume them for long enough and global resources will eventually run out.
Concerns surrounding this risk have persisted for decades. King Hubbert , in , published his hypothesis that for any given region, a fossil fuel production curve would follow a bell-shaped curve, with production first increasing following discovery of new resources and improved extraction methods, peaking, then ultimately declining as resources became depleted.
His prediction that the United States would peak in oil production in actually came true although it peaked 17 percent higher than he projected, and its pathway since has not followed the bell-shaped curve he predicted.
Most attempts have, however, been proven wrong. Meanwhile, actual global oil production and consumption continues to rise. The difficulty in attempting to construct these curves is that our discovery of reserves and technological potential to extract these reserves economically evolves with time.
0コメント