SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
It's called Spark Controlled Compression Ignition, and Mazda made it work.
Despite rumors to the contrary, the internal combustion engine is far from dead. Recently we've seen several technological advances that will significantly boost the efficiency of gasoline-powered engines. One of these, first reported back in August 2017, is Mazda's breakthrough with compression ignition. On Tuesday, Mazda invited us to its R&D facility in California to learn more about this clever new Skyactiv-X engine, but more importantly we actually got to drive it on the road.
The idea behind Skyactiv-X is to be able to run the engine with as lean a fuel-air mixture (known as λ) as possible. Because very lean combustion is cooler than a stoichiometric reaction (where λ=1 and there is exactly enough air to completely burn each molecule of fuel but no more), less energy is wasted as heat. What's more, the exhaust gases contain fewer nasty nitrogen oxides, and the unused air gets put to work. It absorbs the combustion heat and then expands and pushes down on the piston. The result is a cleaner, more efficient, and more powerful engine. And Skyactiv-X uses a very lean mix: a λ up to 2.5.
(Score: 1) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday January 31 2018, @02:10PM (4 children)
Just to be clear, 'peak' is a misleading term. What happens instead is that sources of fossil fuel energy that used to be too expensive to harvest relative to the income they generated become attractive. The world will eventually run out of fossil fuel sources, but mountains' worth in sources will become profitable to harvest if petroleum is consistently at $150 per barrel and mountains' more will open if it's consistently at $200 per barrel and so forth.
I keep hoping carbon-neutral ways to generate combustible fuels are created, like highly efficient crops or algae or similar. The amount of carbon generated from the combustion could be 100% offset by the amount of carbon consumed growing the crop. But that idea has been under active exploration since at least the 1970s and nobody seems to be able to make it work. Maybe it will become cost-efficient relative to fossil fuels once they cross a certain price threshold.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday January 31 2018, @07:36PM (3 children)
It isn't misleading at all--it refers to the historical point of highest production, with, by definition, all production before and after that point being lower to some degree.
"Highest point" literally means "Peak."
Sure, people get confused about it, and think alarmist doomsday things, but the term itself is pretty crystal clear.
As for depletion, our harvest rate for oil exceeds natural production rates of that resource. Therefore, inescapably, "The world will eventually run out of fossil fuel sources."
That doesn't mean the sky is falling, nor that we have run out or are anywhere close to doing so. It just means that the system is not sustainable over the long term and eventually must be replaced with something else, whether that something else is rainbows and unicorns enjoying solar and wind power, or whether it's mankind standing around saying "I dunno, we used to use oil for that, but now it's mostly manpower and draft animals."
(Score: 1) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:25PM (2 children)
Then people refer to a 'peak' they typically envision a chart that looks like a mountain - something that grows exponentially fast and then collapses with equal speed. Fossil fuel production will have a 'peak', but it will be the high point on a very gradually sloped curve. The only way fossil fuel production collapses with incredible speed is if a cheap alternative experiences meteoric growth. The implication of the phrase 'peak oil' is that there will be a massive global energy crisis as soon as it happens, my understanding of the situation is that it's at best a misunderstanding and at worse fear-mongering.
And yes, the world will run out eventually. But again, there are trillions upon trillions of gallons of untapped resources that we currently ignore because cheaper resources are available. Here too the forecasts of 'peak oil' predicted the beginning of a decline in five years, or even in the 1990s or earlier. Instead we are centuries away from running out. I'm all for a colossal investment in alternatives so that we can stop using fossil fuels, I hate the fossil fuel industry. But cleverly misrepresenting the real situation to garner more public support will do more harm than good.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:01PM (1 child)
And this is unfortunate, because "peak oil" simply means "technically the point with the highest oil harvest rate compared to all the other points."
The location of the peak will--must--remain unknown until fossil fuels fall out of favor in the distant future, and people then may look back and say "oh, here was the peak, in year _____ ."
There are plenty of people who misunderstand and fear-monger--there is absolutely no shortage of such. But honestly, the implication of the phrase "peak oil" is a technical one, and a pretty boring technical one at that. You have to lie about it to generate the misunderstanding and fear-mongering, and even then it's the lie and not the phrase itself that's the problem.
Why can't we simply agree that it will eventually run out, without you and others emotionally reacting with "but... but... there's still lots and lots!!!" Sure, there's still lots, and that's real interesting and all, but not relevant. At some point in the distant future, it will run out. full stop, end of. That does not mean the sky is falling, it does not mean someone is attacking your personal cherished notions, it's just a statement of a prosaic fact.
I've seen analyses that theorized that "peak" was sometime in the 1960s. There are lots of "predictions" of when the peak will have happened, but again, no one will know til the show is over, and predictions are just that. Take them as you would predictions of any psychic or medium.
Me too; alternative energy becoming mainstream energy is fun to watch.
Yes, the jerks doing that are reprehensible, but note that it's "some jerks" doing that, not the innocuous phrase "peak oil." They don't own it.
(Score: 1) by bobthecimmerian on Monday February 12 2018, @12:24PM
Great points. I apologize, I get caught up in the discussion because when "peak oil" enters conversation among my friends and family members it is almost always as a piece of misinformed or intentionally dishonest hyperbole.
I have asthmatic siblings and children, so I care deeply for reducing the use of fossil fuels. But when the doomsday chants about the end of oil start, I can see the educated conservatives sigh and reduce their estimation of the speaker's intelligence or ethics. (Usually intelligence.)
But you never went that route, I just read intent and tone in your post that wasn't there. Sorry.