Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 4063376" data-attributes="member: 177">No, it is well known that you can synthesize long-chain hydrocarbons.&nbsp; We do it all the time.&nbsp; The thing is, that doing so for an energy source is a losing game - basic thermodynamics says that you cannot get more energy out of the molecule that you put into it.&nbsp; For fossil fuels, that energy was put in for us by biological and geological process, so to us it looks to cost only what it takes to extract and process it.&nbsp; But to chemically synthesize it, you need energy.So, if you have a big solar array, and you need to make the energy portable, you can use the electricity to make gasoline, and put it in a gas tank.&nbsp; But you lose some of the energy in the process.&nbsp; Generally, the fewer conversion steps your energy has to go through to meet our needs, the better.Technically, yes, but as you note, this is somewhat semantic.&nbsp; In terms of bulk energy production, becoming economically inviable is &quot;running out&quot; - if it costs more wealth to get out of the ground than you get for burning it for fuel, the fuel is effectively not there at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 4063376, member: 177"] No, it is well known that you can synthesize long-chain hydrocarbons. We do it all the time. The thing is, that doing so for an energy source is a losing game - basic thermodynamics says that you cannot get more energy out of the molecule that you put into it. For fossil fuels, that energy was put in for us by biological and geological process, so to us it looks to cost only what it takes to extract and process it. But to chemically synthesize it, you need energy. So, if you have a big solar array, and you need to make the energy portable, you can use the electricity to make gasoline, and put it in a gas tank. But you lose some of the energy in the process. Generally, the fewer conversion steps your energy has to go through to meet our needs, the better. Technically, yes, but as you note, this is somewhat semantic. In terms of bulk energy production, becoming economically inviable is "running out" - if it costs more wealth to get out of the ground than you get for burning it for fuel, the fuel is effectively not there at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification