Comment by KellyCriterion
18 hours ago
Just imagine:
ALL the money that flew into "Fossil & Co" throughout the last, lets say, 50 or 60 years, including all implicit fundings, like state-building-streets or universities-masters-engineering-focus-ICE, all the money for lobbying, all the money for all the (counter)campaigns (from ALL sides), and all that money....
...WHAT IF we would have spent all of this money instead on Battery Research and all this Renewable Energy stuff?
Where would we be today on techdev curve? ;-) ;-)
We would probably be dramatically farther behind in the Materials Research conducted by the chemical companies underlying the fossil fuels industry, which has itself been necessary to the improvements in battery & semiconductor technologies we are now enjoying. Polyimides don’t invent themselves!
“What If?” history is fun, but there are always Tradeoffs.
So, Material Science research progress wouldnt have been possible without burning all the stuff for decades in all types of combustion engines? :-D
Where do you think the fancy metallurgy for a modern combustion engine came from?
Is the oil industry the secret benefactor of more breakthroughs? That’s some steelmanning.
You have it entirely backwards: Oil is refined to create feedstock chemicals for everything from beauty creams to jet engine ceramics to lithography intermediates to hydrogenated oils and decaffeinated coffee. It is these new and inventive uses which have continuously increased demand for the raw resources and driven research.
2 replies →
[dead]
Hard to imagine being farther behind than a static page with no services.
I'd love to see a 'manhattan project' to get off of oil, in any way possible eg batteries or algae-produced diesel, whatever works, for geopolitical purposes.
This was the original mission of the Department of Energy…
In a very concrete way China has basically been running it. It's given us EVs, a massive PV cost reduction, cheap hydropower, cheap wind power, lots of battery cost reductions, and perhaps even enhanced competitiveness in the nuclear market. Also modern high speed rail which is readily fueled by non-ICE methods.
Algae diesel would be amazing.
Honestly not really. Insolation energy is not that high, and photosynthesis tops out at around 10% under best conditions, and that's energy out the end of photosystem (solar cells are pushing 30% and perovskite might go to 40 or 50%), so doesn't take into account inefficiency in your sugar (much less hydrocarbon) conversio. The care and feeding of algae is annoying, they grow really slowly so contamination is a constant problem, and they self-shade, so the suface area to volume of growth conditions must be high. And a high surface area means awful evap problems... The list goes on
1 reply →
Well we could just use the original manhattan project. Nuclear works, it is just expensive.
Exactly the same as today.
Ungodly amount of money was spent on battery research since 1945, at least $100-150B since 2000 alone. Every combination of anode, cathode and electrolyte was tried, tested and evaluated. We got silver-zinc, Ni-Cd, NiMH and finally Li-Ion batteries as the result.
Do you have some links or stats here?
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22858
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-rise-of-lithium-ion-bat...
Early Li-ion battery tech was developed by none other than Exxon itself (in second link)
1 reply →
We would have inefficient and polluting engines, leaded gasoline, steam engines burning coal, no high performance plastics, and probably more even wars around oil and gas and slower economy leading to less resource to fund battery research...
I mean, batteries and solar panels are cool, but thinking about the future doesn't mean we should forget the present. The advance we could have gotten by diverting funding away from fossil fuels and towards renewables and batteries is to balance with the damage caused by using outdated fossil fuel technology before the transition.
Cities are breathable now thanks to all the progresses modern engines have made. They will be even more breathable with zero emission cars, but I prefer to wait a bit more in these conditions than waiting a bit less in a smog filled city.
So progress is in burning fossils because otherwise we cant >get it<?
Progress is in doing more work with less impact. Burning fossils more efficiently and burning less of them because we have an alternative are both progress.
We might have shaven off ~10 years from the current timeline.
Batteries are only a part of the equation. Practical EVs were enabled not just by Li-ion batteries but by IGBTs. And semiconductor development moved about as fast as possible.
And then there's a gulf between lead-acid batteries and Li-ions. I think only NiMH batteries would have been a reasonable midpoint, and even they would have been impractical for full EVs.