Carbon-neutral fuels consist of nearly any energy source that isn't derived from either petroleum or grid-tied electricity. The major categories and most noteworthy types are listed in the archive. Note that they indeed must be used independently of crude oil, or else they are not carbon-neutral.
The basic constituents of these carbon-neutral fuels are water, organic matter, heat, and air pressure. More specific forms and outlets (engines) for these fuels include the rotary piston engine, alcohol fuels (especially cellulosic ethanol), biodiesel, biogas, syngas, wood gas, hydrogen (preferably derived via radiolysis instead of electrolysis), thermal engines such as stirling engines and nitinol heat engines, anything water-powered (boundary-layer turbine, water wheels, micro hydro power plant), cavitation (in the form of the cavitation water heater), and resonant technologies.
Some big picture explanations:
#14
#26 Overall
August 31 2020 4:42AM
Some types of fire is okay, don't get me wrong. I spent a lifetime dedicating myself to fixing this crude oil dilemma, and came across one simple ideal that is often overlooked by environmental zealots, and that is carbon neutral source energies. These are the sources of fire that will burn no matter what we do. Utilizing the energy within the cycles is what is important. Carbon dioxide for example. Where we miss the energy source now, and let it vent into the environment unused, is our food animal shit. If collected properly and filtered through a settling pond of cattails, then utilized cellulosic ethanol extraction from their food source, we could distill the ethanol away from the carbon cycle, thus reliving the cattle, pigs, chickens, etc., from a build up of sugars. Their flatulence/methane stores are difficult to contain... unless you grab it before the cow eats it. See what I mean? The methane was going to be produced, but only by the sugars. If we removed the sugars and processed it into ethanol, through a dedicated source material high in density, NOTHING would change about the availability of food. In fact it would increase because the food animals would be a lot healthier. That's just one small snippet of the research I put into this. But you get the idea. Many variations of extracting fuel from the environment can be imagined. With cellulosic ethanol mastered, leaves falling that would normally rot and turn into methane could be used; grass clippings, sawdust, weeds, corn stocks, ANYTHING that is a plant. Every year these sources of fuel die outright or hibernate. When they rot, the fuel source is turned to methane and vents itself into the atmosphere. Ethanol can be considered liquid sunshine. All ethanol is, is the sugars in a plant fermented. Meaning, that once the sugar is removed, the nutrients stay. The leftover wort/mash, can be redistributed onto the land in a refined way that plants love. Extracting ethanol from these sources would improve the health of every process involved in farming. So yeah, carbon neutral sources of energy are everywhere. We're just too stupid to see it.
On a related note, the following is an explanation of hydrocarbons/carbohydrates which are carbon-neutral, versus those which are not carbon-neutral:
#466
March 6 2022 6:47PM
...
Hydrocarbons are everywhere in the environment, but again, there's two specific categories they're broken into, specifically for this type of dialogue. There's the planetary sequestration version that has been buried through geological processes, and has (or shouldn't have) no bearing on the current atmospheric percentages. These hydrocarbons are not neutral to the atmospheric saturation that burning them entails. When these hydrocarbons are burned, the atmosphere changes. The other category are the carbon neutral hydrocarbons. Plants, animal waste, flesh decay, etc. I'll use smoking a cigarette as an example. Smoke the cigarette, which is a hydrocarbon, the smoke (CO2) becomes the carbon dioxide to produce another tobacco plant through photosynthesis, the primary function of planetary albedo, and another cigarette is ready to be smoked. Cradle to cradle; no atmospheric fluctuation in either direction. The hydrocarbon becomes an integral player in the atmosphere no matter which form it takes during its life cycle. "Finite," or rather geologically sequestered hydrocarbons are not part of this process now. They were, yes, but in the present capacity they're not participating in a construction way.
The Earth system functions like this over abstract geologic timescales without human interference: volcanoes belch carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Plant life breathes in carbon dioxide, absorbs sunlight, converts base nutrients and grows into cellulose, starch and sugar. Cellulose, starch and sugar (saccharides, disaccharides and polysaccharides respectively) are classified as carbohydrates; the inverse of hydrocarbons. These carbohydrates either breakdown through decay into carbon dioxide and methane (CH4), or find their way to waterways. Eventually these waterways coagulate into lakes, seas, and oceans. From there the carbohydrates are cocooned by neutral sediments like clay, silica, calcium carbonate, etc and get trapped in an anaerobic environment that is under great pressure. The sediments over time form granite (albeit less structurally sound than ancient tempered granite, but still granite), sandstone, limestone, etc. Plate tectonics uplift some areas, where others are submerged closer to the mantle layer. The closer to the mantel layer these trapped carbohydrates get to the mantel, the hotter temperature. If a perfect combination of pressure, heat, an anaerobic environment, and a sealed/cocooned area is achieved, the carbohydrates transform over long periods of time into crude oil, and natural gas. Eventually, again this is in abstract geologic timescales, those now transformed hydrocarbons get burned up in magma chambers and expelled into the atmosphere in volcanic eruptions. That's the basis for long scale carbon dioxide sequestration. This poses a dilemma for a species that's unnaturally interfering with this abstract geologic sequestration process of cycling carbon dioxide. The problem is that the atmosphere creates its own equilibrium in conjunction with the thermohaline conveyor climate process. The thermohaline conveyor creates climates where plant life grows naturally, and doesn't grow. This balancing act creates stability in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide gets breathed in by plants, the oxygen exhaled gets breathed in by animals (humans included), and a stabilized system of reciprocation with the available plant life and animal life exchanging carbon dioxide and oxygen finds equilibrium. That's the system that suffers when abstract geologic timescale sequestration is interfered with. Carbon dioxide increases as sequestered hydrocarbons burn in an equilibrium achieved system. The climates regulated by the thermohaline conveyor cannot spread plant life into areas that have been regulated naturally to not grow plant life without direct intervention. This is where humanity comes into play, but it has not been cognizant of this dilemma. Raising the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is okay, as long as this parallel system of extending plant life into areas that it's not supported in now by climate regulation happens congruently. That would give humanity the ability to regulate the equilibrium of the atmosphere, but currently this is considered a nonissue. So what happens as a result? The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase, the available plant life grows unnaturally large to try to compensate and bring the atmosphere back into equilibrium, and what's not absorbed by plant life starts to add to the greenhouse effect, warming the atmosphere further, and changing the parameters of the thermohaline conveyor. The system becomes strained further as the already engorged plant life from increased carbon dioxide levels strain under the pressure of also having to contend with a warmer climate that they were not designed to cope with. Eventually, something has to break. That is unless humanity decides upon an atmospheric equilibrium standard, then regulates it into neutrality by burning sequestered hydrocarbons, and physically extending plant life into areas that do not currently provide a stable environment to plant life. Without doing this, the cataclysmic events are a certainty. However, if this regulation is done incrementally at a steady pace, there's no reason why humanity cannot turn the entire surface of the Earth green, while also regulating into the expansion a warmer climate for the entire planet. As it stands now, nobody gives a shit about the possibility of a more welcoming environment. The goals are centered around exploitation of what already occurs in the current climate. That said, there is a possibility where interfering with the sequester sequence can provide benefits to all life, but very few if any other than people like me even consider it. Most environmentalists for example do not view these positions as possibilities at all. Their goals are to regulate the extension of sequestered carbon dioxide to a nill position, and find equilibrium from the atmospheric system that was in place before industrialization. This is also as foolish, if not more so than unmitigated sequestered carbon dioxide exploitation has become without global regulation.
Here's the dilemma that seemingly, the environmentalists don't seem to equate into their philosophy. Let's say that all sequestered hydrocarbon burning immediately stopped. Next the expansion of reforestation became a priority and plant life was expanded into areas that were previously uninhabited. This would cause a scenario where the carbon dioxide saturation in the atmosphere regresses. The greenhouse effect would then reverse and the global climate would cool. The plant life that's expanded outward since the last equilibrium cycle of balancing with the thermohaline conveyor would die off or retract until a new balance was achieved. The loss of all expansions from reforestation would also die off causing spikes and fluctuations of carbon dioxide, and methane. Where this series of events would coalesce is the same cataclysm scenario that has plagued the Earth for several interglacial cycles. Therefore both the unmitigated usage of sequestered hydrocarbon consumption, as well as the environmental protection ideology stances are incorrect from inception. Why? Because neither are trying to equate their goals to a cradle to cradle standpoint with a summation of equilibrium as their focus. Which is why both positions are incorrect. Both positions end in a cataclysmic situation.
The reason for this explanation is because of the inherent cost of choosing either polar opposite to this conundrum. It's important to understand that nuance is applicable. Hydrocarbon usage is extremely useful in many ways, but until the object of focus is based upon planetary equilibrium, the nuance is moot. People who debate this topic do not have equilibrium as a facet to their argument, and as a result use emotions to quantify their beliefs. One side says "we should be enjoying life because fun is fun." The other side says "we should think of the children because that makes me feel like I'm compassionate... and that makes me a good person." But where is the equilibrium in either position? There isn't one. Both are simply trying to maximize emotional quality in the here and now perspective. Ask an environmentalist for their complete synopsis and they will say something to the effect of "nature should be in control." Well, from a geological perspective that means being subjected to cataclysms every 12,000ish years. So the reality of their goals is destructive, not productive... when the focus is equilibrium. They're not trying to assume responsibility and implement balance. They're passing the onus onto a premise of plausible deniability. Extremely religious and faith based ironically, as if there's some semblance of success to a premise that concludes with destruction... as long as it's "nature" that decides what humanity's fate is. The opposite spectrum is just as faith based, but their goals align with "consumption is good, "God" created these elements for humanity to exploit, and we can do no wrong if we just keep maximizing pleasure." I guess because in their minds "God" wants humanity to be happy and ignorant while they destroy everything? Neither side is righteous, but fundamentally at the base on their intentions, they're both actually exactly the same; taking cues off of emotionally based reinforcement from other like minded individuals. The truth is that both dichotomies are correct and incorrect simultaneously. That's why the contradictions seem to be against what I say when context is not strictly accurate to the words I'm choosing. Carbon neutral hydrocarbon usage has no effect on equilibrium as long as overconsumption is regulated. Sequestered hydrocarbon usage has an effect on equilibrium AS LONG AS there aren't steps taken during that consumption to balance the carbon dioxide saturation that has been introduced to the atmosphere. A complete regression or stoppage of sequestered hydrocarbon consumption without an equilibrium philosophy as the basis for the stoppage, is just as destructive, AS LONG AS the onus is left up to "nature" to correct on its own.
~
And now, the real goal when it comes to carbon. For more on this topic, see the Plant and Animal Life page.
(Also from #466)
Here's how "it should go..."
Humanity chooses a value of carbon dioxide saturation in the atmosphere. For argument's sake we'll say that value is 500 ppm. Historically the value has been roughly 250-300 during the thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution, and post moon inclusion, or the extinction of the dinosaurs. Whichever theory people choose to accept, we can all agree that the global climate was much more stable when the hydrocarbons that have been sequestered through natural geological processes, were available carbon dioxide molecules to the atmosphere. The dinosaur epoch lasted for millions of years with few, if any notable global cataclysms. That simply does not exist in the geological record. The evidence suggests that the Earth functions more stable when the global climate is warmer: more plant life, more oxygen, larger more densely populated animal life, and a more stable climate globally. That is not up for debate with anyone... at least it shouldn't be.
So, the agreed upon goal is to achieve a 500 ppm carbon dioxide saturation (hypothetically). First things first is to find the equilibrium fulcrum at current saturation levels. In other words, humanity immediately starts "water farming" everywhere on Earth. From those reservoirs, new plant life is grown, especially in areas that are devoid of plant life now (deserts, prairies, etc). As soon as the global carbon dioxide saturation levels off or starts to regress, start burning sequestered hydrocarbon sources at a more rapid rate. This will increase warmth through the greenhouse effect, and more regions will be available to grow more plant life. More humidity will be available for further water farming with the increase in temperature, and as long as it's gathered in water farming reservoirs, it's not an issue for the thermohaline conveyor. The salinity will remain stable. Expand this philosophy incrementally until the entire Earth, polar regions included, are moderate-tropical climates FULL of thriving plant life and animal life. If 500 ppm carbon dioxide is not sufficient for this to happen globally, increase or decrease that number as needed. The point is to get started, no matter what that numerical value actually is. It's not a sacred number, and shouldn't be considered so. It's simply a starting value based on current empirical evidence. Too many people want to have exact answers before starting, and that's ridiculous. We will know what the optimal saturation point for equilibrium is when we get there. What we know now is that 250-300 ppm is too cold to sustain a global moderate climate. 420ish (current saturation level) is warm enough to melt permafrost and glaciers in arctic regions, but too cold to sustain global moderate climates similar to the extremely lengthy moderate climates present during the age of dinosaurs. We also know that as the glacier regions meltdown, the salinity is changing the thermohaline conveyor. So, the first logical place to start water farming with enthusiasm are places like desert climates. Build reservoirs everywhere. They don't need to be lake Powell sized, and in fact that's a detriment. Thousands of small reservoirs are the goal. Use the water to sustain plant life. Expand until the saturation meets sustainability, then continue until the entire planet is, at least on land, a massive forest. Then start knocking down the Rockies (heh) and make more land for planting more forest. All the sequestered hydrocarbons will now be an integral part of planetary albedo AGAIN... and the curtailment of those sequestered hydrocarbon sources can begin. Why at that point? Because biogas, syngas, wood, etc, will now be readily available as a fuel source for everyone everywhere on Earth, and those sources will be carbon neutral TO THE EQUILIBRIUM POINT. Meaning that those plants will behave in the same manner as the cigarette did in the previous analogy. The point is that Earth is a spaceship that can be upgraded by humanity. The more people try to argue with me and play semantics games highlighting perceived contradictions, the less they understand this philosophy. The overwhelming majority of people look at the Earth as an enemy. Something that's out to get them, and in that mindset they implore notions of protecting the pleasures they've come to enjoy. I see Earth, with all of its quirks as an opportunity for improvement. And until people can understand that philosophy and use it in their lives ubiquitously, they will continue to argue with what I'm saying, even if they don't understand the complexity involved. It's like I said a while ago, if people are listening to what I'm saying just to find inconsistencies or anomalies in language parameters that appear to elude to me being a scammer, or otherwise wrong in some way, they'll never actually hear what I'm saying. "Ehrmagawd! He said all hydrocarbons are baaad!" Not really. What I was actually saying, and this is backed up by millions of words that you yourself have catalogued, is that government regulated sequestered hydrocarbon consumption, with no plans or goals to implement that consumption into an equilibrium platform of sustainability long into the future... is bad. I just left out the bulk of designated nomenclatures because I was talking to you, and I didn't know you were going to post that write up. If I knew that I'd be speaking to the peanut gallery that's been trying to discredit and insult me since our paths crossed, I would have been clearer than "I stand firm that anyone using hydrocarbons of any variety is asking for war, and the subsequent destruction of the entire human race." And I apologize for not being absolutely perfect in designating every single word I say according to the arrogant posture of the geniuses that give you grief over it... I'd like to hear their grand synopsis for the continuance of life on Earth. In reality, they're all just tossing stones from a glass house, and are arguing empirical facts with opinionated nonsense. The interesting thing is that even after that entire rundown, we're (as in you and I) are essentially regressing. I've been teaching you how to utilize energy sources that are outside of the hydrocarbon system, sequestered or atmospheric. Air pressure created by purely mechanical functions and sustained through mediums like wind, hydro, solar and nitinol do not add to nor take away from carbon saturation... at least not after the mining for those materials has commenced. And that's already been accounted for a long time ago. What's even better about it is that I've eliminated the inclusion of electricity, which I AND YOU have repeatedly provided evidence for being as detrimental to health, if not more so than hydrocarbon consumption. So, when anyone gives you grief about these topics, my advice is to call their bluff. They posture like they have answers to extremely complex issues, make them prove it. I see opportunity when people do that to me... but I'm betting "they" won't.