Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes no sense to use land to make bio fuels when you can use land to make a solar farms. Solar farms require far less land to produce more electricity - it doesn't even need to be good land - land that is good for solar farms are the least desirable places on earth to live. Even current battery tech is sufficient to run the planet - this tech will only get better and cheaper.

You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

Current battery technology is woefully insufficient, and there is no where near enough good solar areas to power everything. Plus you have issues with loss of energy the greater the distance between the solar panels and the end user. Energy generation needs to be relatively close to the end user.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes no sense to use land to make bio fuels when you can use land to make a solar farms. Solar farms require far less land to produce more electricity - it doesn't even need to be good land - land that is good for solar farms are the least desirable places on earth to live. Even current battery tech is sufficient to run the planet - this tech will only get better and cheaper.

You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

Current battery technology is woefully insufficient, and there is no where near enough good solar areas to power everything. Plus you have issues with loss of energy the greater the distance between the solar panels and the end user. Energy generation needs to be relatively close to the end user.

Pretty sure batteries can travel independent of where power is generated. Pretty sure.

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure batteries can travel independent of where power is generated. Pretty sure.

Hauling batteries from the power plant to the end user would be ridiculously inefficient, and just plain stupid in a world where transmission lines exist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes no sense to use land to make bio fuels when you can use land to make a solar farms. Solar farms require far less land to produce more electricity - it doesn't even need to be good land - land that is good for solar farms are the least desirable places on earth to live. Even current battery tech is sufficient to run the planet - this tech will only get better and cheaper.

You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

Current battery technology is woefully insufficient, and there is no where near enough good solar areas to power everything. Plus you have issues with loss of energy the greater the distance between the solar panels and the end user. Energy generation needs to be relatively close to the end user.

Growing algae like that is orders of magnitude more difficult than solar. The water requirements of a hydroponic facility are also significant and can limit where you can build them. Growing algae always seems easy to anyone who has had a fish tank because it seems like it grows with no effort at all but growing the type of algae you want, without contamination, in large enough quantities to be useful, is very far from an easy task. It's so difficult that there are entire businesses that just sell 8oz bottles of algae to salt water aquarists for like $15 a bottle.

Electric vehicles are improving in leaps and bounds, and there are many ways to create the batteries to power them. As it turns out, a byproduct of the oil refining process IS lithium. And they've just been throwing it away.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes no sense to use land to make bio fuels when you can use land to make a solar farms. Solar farms require far less land to produce more electricity - it doesn't even need to be good land - land that is good for solar farms are the least desirable places on earth to live. Even current battery tech is sufficient to run the planet - this tech will only get better and cheaper.

There's a current massive issue right now where Solar Farms are killing birds. One needs to plan the Solar Farms so that they won't be in any migratory paths else there will be some massive ecological damage.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes no sense to use land to make bio fuels when you can use land to make a solar farms. Solar farms require far less land to produce more electricity - it doesn't even need to be good land - land that is good for solar farms are the least desirable places on earth to live. Even current battery tech is sufficient to run the planet - this tech will only get better and cheaper.

There's a current massive issue right now where Solar Farms are killing birds. One needs to plan the Solar Farms so that they won't be in any migratory paths else there will be some massive ecological damage.

Hummm - this sounds like a windmill issue and yeah - that is a problem with windmills. Wind power is not efficient at all - costwise/energywise - it's crap compared to solar. More power to people trying to inovate but the space requirements plus the visual pollution the produce is not good for anyone - including birds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure batteries can travel independent of where power is generated. Pretty sure.

Hauling batteries from the power plant to the end user would be ridiculously inefficient, and just plain stupid in a world where transmission lines exist.

Yeah - absolutely. The range of electricity is effectively unlimited - though you lose efficiency the farther it has to move. Most batteries I assume will be charged in peoples homes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure batteries can travel independent of where power is generated. Pretty sure.

Hauling batteries from the power plant to the end user would be ridiculously inefficient, and just plain stupid in a world where transmission lines exist.

Isn't that the current model? I don't buy my batteries from the hydro dam.

 vonjankmon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes no sense to use land to make bio fuels when you can use land to make a solar farms. Solar farms require far less land to produce more electricity - it doesn't even need to be good land - land that is good for solar farms are the least desirable places on earth to live. Even current battery tech is sufficient to run the planet - this tech will only get better and cheaper.

You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

Current battery technology is woefully insufficient, and there is no where near enough good solar areas to power everything. Plus you have issues with loss of energy the greater the distance between the solar panels and the end user. Energy generation needs to be relatively close to the end user.

Growing algae like that is orders of magnitude more difficult than solar. The water requirements of a hydroponic facility are also significant and can limit where you can build them. Growing algae always seems easy to anyone who has had a fish tank because it seems like it grows with no effort at all but growing the type of algae you want, without contamination, in large enough quantities to be useful, is very far from an easy task. It's so difficult that there are entire businesses that just sell 8oz bottles of algae to salt water aquarists for like $15 a bottle.

Hydroponic facilities recycle their water. So they actually need very little additional water once they are up and running. That's actually one of the primary benefits of hydroponics, you can capture and recycle nearly 100% of the water that is used to grow the product.

No, it's not easy. But you can do it in way more places than you can put solar farms, especially since you are producing energy dense fuel. This type of algae already exists by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

It's not totally economically viable yet, but in the near future it likely will be. And it will yield more energy density than solar farms can give.

This may have been mentioned already as the responses here are quite thoughtful but, here's one: sunk cost. Perhaps solar and / or battery operated cars could work if the supporting infrastructure was built up from scratch around them. However, for many post-industrial countries, the infrastructure is already set up for oil. There would be so much money needed not just to build new stuff but, to tear down the old stuff and, to repair all the areas that were torn down.

 RancidHate wrote:
This may have been mentioned already as the responses here are quite thoughtful but, here's one: sunk cost. Perhaps solar and / or battery operated cars could work if the supporting infrastructure was built up from scratch around them. However, for many post-industrial countries, the infrastructure is already set up for oil. There would be so much money needed not just to build new stuff but, to tear down the old stuff and, to repair all the areas that were torn down.

It was somewhat.

This is actually probably the best reason that Hybrids are the way to go. They use existing infrastructure, no need to add anything.

 feeder wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure batteries can travel independent of where power is generated. Pretty sure.

Hauling batteries from the power plant to the end user would be ridiculously inefficient, and just plain stupid in a world where transmission lines exist.

Isn't that the current model? I don't buy my batteries from the hydro dam.

It's the current model for small batteries, because most people are too lazy to use the far superior and more efficient rechargeable batteries. And it only works because the disposable batteries are small and purchased in relatively small quantities per person. The logistics of supplying heavy and bulky car batteries fully charged from the power plant would be an absolute nightmare in comparison.

 Grey Templar wrote:

You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

I can't see how that could be. Algae is also getting power from the sun, but photosynthesis is less efficient than solar panels http://solarfuel.clas.asu.edu/comparison-photosynthetic-and-photovoltaic-efficiencies. And then you have to run the tanks and convert the sugars to fuel, which also takes energy.

This isn't to say that algae is a bad way to make biofuels, but in terms of raw energy output per square meter it's far lower than just going with solar panels.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes no sense to use land to make bio fuels when you can use land to make a solar farms. Solar farms require far less land to produce more electricity - it doesn't even need to be good land - land that is good for solar farms are the least desirable places on earth to live. Even current battery tech is sufficient to run the planet - this tech will only get better and cheaper.

There's a current massive issue right now where Solar Farms are killing birds. One needs to plan the Solar Farms so that they won't be in any migratory paths else there will be some massive ecological damage.

Hummm - this sounds like a windmill issue and yeah - that is a problem with windmills. Wind power is not efficient at all - costwise/energywise - it's crap compared to solar. More power to people trying to inovate but the space requirements plus the visual pollution the produce is not good for anyone - including birds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure batteries can travel independent of where power is generated. Pretty sure.

Hauling batteries from the power plant to the end user would be ridiculously inefficient, and just plain stupid in a world where transmission lines exist.

Yeah - absolutely. The range of electricity is effectively unlimited - though you lose efficiency the farther it has to move. Most batteries I assume will be charged in peoples homes.

Unlimited but you lose more as you go further so it's more efficient to have more local power infrastructure than one giant plant powering a entire country.

 sebster wrote:


I don't really share your belief in government motivated by an Orwellian need for control (control is reflexive to threats, not a natural state). But I do agree with oil being moved to niche roles, military & other government roles, alongside some industry.

Increased centralised control is a trend in the US and UK, with the US intrusion being partly blocked by inalienable rights. It is visible in several sectors, most notably CCTV and the broadening of surveillance powers. Still a move to electric cars in the UK would be welcomed by central government if it happened, it isn't a forseeable plan because of the infrastructure investment needed.

China is my go-to example of introducing electric cars for internal security purposes, and yes it is Orwellian.

Oil will remain niche in the UK because the government car if needed drill oil for internal use from oil stocks not viable for commercial drilling. This will in time happen.

The future is in hybrids.

They give high fuel efficiency, ranges equal and longer to a regular petrol car, and thr advantage of 5 minute refills with existing infrastructure.

Electric requires new infrastructure. Have less range. Take hours to recharge, and battery life is unknown over long time.

The best compromise of modern and electric is the hybrid car. With advancing technology we could see 100 miles to thr galleon or higher efficiency with upgraded filters and catalytic converters.

Low emissions and high efficiency for every litre of petrol.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

Biofuel (ethanol or diesel) can also be made from different waste products, some of which might not have another use. Waste from the food industry, for example, or leftover components from chemically or mechanically processing wood. And the technology is being made better. Neste Oil's renewable diesel, for example, actually performs better than the petrochem while reducing both particle and nitrogen oxide emission. They still use ~50% palm oil in it which is a problem if poorer nations cut down forests for more money instead of sustainable use, but new sources are under evaluation such as that algae.

Plus the sad fact remains that there are places in the world where EVs just can't hack it unless the tech undergoes a real revolution. Combustion engines produce both their own electricity and waste heat, which is pretty nice in winter. They'll drink more anyway but not as drastically much as an electric would when you actually need to warm the cabin and defrost windows/mirrors. So a hybrid maybe, but the use you get out of a full battery pack in Siberia is probably not very many minutes.

 John Prins wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

I can't see how that could be. Algae is also getting power from the sun, but photosynthesis is less efficient than solar panels http://solarfuel.clas.asu.edu/comparison-photosynthetic-and-photovoltaic-efficiencies. And then you have to run the tanks and convert the sugars to fuel, which also takes energy.

This isn't to say that algae is a bad way to make biofuels, but in terms of raw energy output per square meter it's far lower than just going with solar panels.

In the case of these particular algae, it's not that you're melting down the algae. It's that the algae has been genetically modified to produce a flammable hydrocarbon as their waste product. You're not fermenting the algae sugars to produce ethanol. The algae do it naturally, and you just collect their waste.

Solar farms only work in areas with flat enough land that also receives more or less permanent sunlight. Algae can still photosynthesize even on a cloudy day. And you have the issue that transmitting electricity over long distances is woefully inefficient. While something like biofuel is energy dense enough to where it's worth the effort to ship it around.

 Grey Templar wrote:


In the case of these particular algae, it's not that you're melting down the algae. It's that the algae has been genetically modified to produce a flammable hydrocarbon as their waste product. You're not fermenting the algae sugars to produce ethanol. The algae do it naturally, and you just collect their waste.

That eliminates some of the processing (down to filtering and extracting water from the fuel, but you're still looking at the fact that solar extracts substantially more energy from sunlight than photosynthesis.

Solar farms only work in areas with flat enough land that also receives more or less permanent sunlight. Algae can still photosynthesize even on a cloudy day. And you have the issue that transmitting electricity over long distances is woefully inefficient. While something like biofuel is energy dense enough to where it's worth the effort to ship it around.

And algae is going to be heavily dependent on the ambient temperature and be subject to other micro-organisms wrecking their day. Solar panels still work on a cloudy day, they just output less energy. We use some solar up here in Canada, and yes, we get less energy from it than California might, but we still get useful amounts of energy. Furthermore, electrical transmission is NOT woefully inefficient. In the USA it averages 6-7% losses from production to consumer, and with AC transmission it's still cost effective to 4000km.

The paper I linked talks about a theoretical 24% solar efficiency compared to 1-4% photosynthesis efficiency. Both numbers are probably inflated versus reality, but given the comparison between the numbers, even with transmission losses solar wins hands down.

Finally, it's likely going to be practical to put solar on everyone's household rooftops. IIRC Tesla already has solar shingles in development. Algae tanks, not so much. Again, algae is a good way to make biofuels, but its probably more practical to use solar to generate the electricity to power the lamps that grow the algae at controlled temperatures, in space-saving three dimensional arrays of tubes using red LEDs. This can even occupy the same real estate.

 John Prins wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


In the case of these particular algae, it's not that you're melting down the algae. It's that the algae has been genetically modified to produce a flammable hydrocarbon as their waste product. You're not fermenting the algae sugars to produce ethanol. The algae do it naturally, and you just collect their waste.

That eliminates some of the processing (down to filtering and extracting water from the fuel, but you're still looking at the fact that solar extracts substantially more energy from sunlight than photosynthesis.

Solar farms only work in areas with flat enough land that also receives more or less permanent sunlight. Algae can still photosynthesize even on a cloudy day. And you have the issue that transmitting electricity over long distances is woefully inefficient. While something like biofuel is energy dense enough to where it's worth the effort to ship it around.

And algae is going to be heavily dependent on the ambient temperature and be subject to other micro-organisms wrecking their day. Solar panels still work on a cloudy day, they just output less energy. We use some solar up here in Canada, and yes, we get less energy from it than California might, but we still get useful amounts of energy. Furthermore, electrical transmission is NOT woefully inefficient. In the USA it averages 6-7% losses from production to consumer, and with AC transmission it's still cost effective to 4000km.

The paper I linked talks about a theoretical 24% solar efficiency compared to 1-4% photosynthesis efficiency. Both numbers are probably inflated versus reality, but given the comparison between the numbers, even with transmission losses solar wins hands down.

Finally, it's likely going to be practical to put solar on everyone's household rooftops. IIRC Tesla already has solar shingles in development. Algae tanks, not so much. Again, algae is a good way to make biofuels, but its probably more practical to use solar to generate the electricity to power the lamps that grow the algae at controlled temperatures, in space-saving three dimensional arrays of tubes using red LEDs. This can even occupy the same real estate.

The question here though is which one is better for energy for transportation. I don't know the answer to that question, I haven't researched the topic, but eliminating the need for batteries sounds like a huge plus to me.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You don't need good land to make biofuel either. Genetically modified algae can be grown in hydroponic facilities anywhere, and would yield much more energy density than a solar farm.

Biofuel (ethanol or diesel) can also be made from different waste products, some of which might not have another use. Waste from the food industry, for example, or leftover components from chemically or mechanically processing wood. And the technology is being made better. Neste Oil's renewable diesel, for example, actually performs better than the petrochem while reducing both particle and nitrogen oxide emission. They still use ~50% palm oil in it which is a problem if poorer nations cut down forests for more money instead of sustainable use, but new sources are under evaluation such as that algae.

Plus the sad fact remains that there are places in the world where EVs just can't hack it unless the tech undergoes a real revolution. Combustion engines produce both their own electricity and waste heat, which is pretty nice in winter. They'll drink more anyway but not as drastically much as an electric would when you actually need to warm the cabin and defrost windows/mirrors. So a hybrid maybe, but the use you get out of a full battery pack in Siberia is probably not very many minutes.

There are places in UK it would be harder yet alone Russia.

You go north to Scotland. There are limited stations on route in certain areas. It's wise to fill up max before you depart or in northern England, just to make sure you got plenty sparebjust in case you need it.

You would need to build alot of charging points to make it work and some of these areas are pretty remote from existing power infrastructure. Miles and miles of new power lines and such needed.

Unless range changes massively. Hybrids are the way to go.
They offer environmentally friendly performance with out draw backs..

 jhe90 wrote:
The future is in hybrids.

They give high fuel efficiency, ranges equal and longer to a regular petrol car, and thr advantage of 5 minute refills with existing infrastructure.

Electric requires new infrastructure. Have less range. Take hours to recharge, and battery life is unknown over long time.

The best compromise of modern and electric is the hybrid car. With advancing technology we could see 100 miles to thr galleon or higher efficiency with upgraded filters and catalytic converters.

Low emissions and high efficiency for every litre of petrol.

Hybrids are pretty pointless to be honest. You go to all that effort of putting an electric motor in there only to lose efficiency because you're carrying a dirty great big engine block etc.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
The future is in hybrids.

They give high fuel efficiency, ranges equal and longer to a regular petrol car, and thr advantage of 5 minute refills with existing infrastructure.

Electric requires new infrastructure. Have less range. Take hours to recharge, and battery life is unknown over long time.

The best compromise of modern and electric is the hybrid car. With advancing technology we could see 100 miles to thr galleon or higher efficiency with upgraded filters and catalytic converters.

Low emissions and high efficiency for every litre of petrol.

Hybrids are pretty pointless to be honest. You go to all that effort of putting an electric motor in there only to lose efficiency because you're carrying a dirty great big engine block etc.

Engines don't have to be all that heavy these days relative to the total vehicle weight unless you're trying to squeeze several hundred HP out of them. If the presence of the eletric motor means you don't need as powerful of a petrol motor (because the electric motor is the one doing the hard accelerations) then you can get away with something pretty light for the petrol motor, probably in the ~50kg range.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

The question here though is which one is better for energy for transportation. I don't know the answer to that question, I haven't researched the topic, but eliminating the need for batteries sounds like a huge plus to me.

Yes, it is. Turning solar into an energy storage medium (battery, hydrogen, biofuel, hydrazine, boron, flywheel, hydraulic reservoir) is basically necessary for night time power A lot could change if the correct battery technologies pan out, there are multiple different ones in development right now that could radically change power storage, but it remains to be seen if we can industrialize their manufacture or not.

 Orlanth wrote:
China is my go-to example of introducing electric cars for internal security purposes, and yes it is Orwellian.

It's fundamentally weird that you would see a country that imports more than 2/3 of its oil, with little scope to increase domestic product but a projected doubling in cars in the next decade or two, and think plan to move away from oil was about anything other than the fact that China doesn't want to their economy to be dependent on an energy source they have no control over.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
China is my go-to example of introducing electric cars for internal security purposes, and yes it is Orwellian.

It's fundamentally weird that you would see a country that imports more than 2/3 of its oil, with little scope to increase domestic product but a projected doubling in cars in the next decade or two, and think plan to move away from oil was about anything other than the fact that China doesn't want to their economy to be dependent on an energy source they have no control over.

China has the muscle to control oil imports.

Also energy needs to come from an energy source, it will be more efficient to put oil in a car than put oil in a power station to convert to electricity to put that in the car.

Chinas consumer and infrastructure concerns echo ours, yet we have yet to go so far. China differs from the west in terms of direction of development mostly on internal security issues. The media technology is the same, but the security component is widely different. China is not notably in favour of green politics either, but is consistently looking for means to tighten control infrastructure. Green dam anyone.

It is not 'fundamentally weird' to read a clear trend.

 Orlanth wrote:
China has the muscle to control oil imports.

That makes zero sense. You can't simply choose to control a global market. Even the US when it was the 600 pound gorilla of the economy and close to energy independent still got hammered by the oil price spike of the 1970s.

The idea that China could just choose to not be affected by oil price movements is not a thing.

Also energy needs to come from an energy source, it will be more efficient to put oil in a car than put oil in a power station to convert to electricity to put that in the car.

China produces coal and gets a lot more from a much more diverse and politically stable group of countries than its sources of oil. China is also the world's largest producer of solar panels. So yes, they will be getting their power from something, the point is less of it will come oil.

Chinas consumer and infrastructure concerns echo ours, yet we have yet to go so far.

China has nothing like the consumer sensitivities that we have. Mandating new cars that have lower performance and much higher prices will sink any government in the West, but this is not the case in China.

I'm not saying China's system is better, because it isn't, its terrible, but it isn't hard to see where they have more freedom to act than in the West.

 RancidHate wrote:
This may have been mentioned already as the responses here are quite thoughtful but, here's one: sunk cost. Perhaps solar and / or battery operated cars could work if the supporting infrastructure was built up from scratch around them. However, for many post-industrial countries, the infrastructure is already set up for oil. There would be so much money needed not just to build new stuff but, to tear down the old stuff and, to repair all the areas that were torn down.

But much of the infrastructure is already there - most western homes have electricity already, and we'd save a huge amount of national grid consumption if we're not splitting oil into petrol/diesel in giant refineries. We may need to introduce some sort of smart charging to spread the load a bit more evenly when there's high demand, but as the range and efficiency improves the demand should go down.
It's not as if everyone refills their car in a petrol station on the way home from work every day, so why would we assume everyone will charge their car at the same time every day? Most people will probably be able to get away with charging their car once or twice a week.

That's before you get into storage options - it may become feasible to have a battery in the house being slowly charged from a solar panel during the day, and used to charge the car overnight.

We'll probably need to upgrade the grid at some point, and introduce more power plants, but we shouldn't have to re-cable everything. We may need to cable some new places like car parks or upgrade petrol stations, but that's fairly trivial. By the time we need to do these upgrades, EV's will already have a significant market saturation.

The only thing that concerns me is how they'll do the tax. I'd assume an annual fee + some sort of toll system, rather than mileage or location tracking.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
China has the muscle to control oil imports.

That makes zero sense. You can't simply choose to control a global market. Even the US when it was the 600 pound gorilla of the economy and close to energy independent still got hammered by the oil price spike of the 1970s.

The idea that China could just choose to not be affected by oil price movements is not a thing.

Take a look at how China operates in Africa, its not considered a colonial policy for nothing. China has the muscle to control and secure oil access.

 sebster wrote:

China has nothing like the consumer sensitivities that we have. Mandating new cars that have lower performance and much higher prices will sink any government in the West, but this is not the case in China.
I'm not saying China's system is better, because it isn't, its terrible, but it isn't hard to see where they have more freedom to act than in the West.

Actually we make similar moves all the time. Our method is to selectively tax, we even do this for hybrid and electric cars and that has helped a trend. However our governments are not committed to the change. We allow the same profiteering over electricity as we do oil, electricity costs could be subsidised if the political will was there. Our governments are also reluctant to invest, so the infrastructure remains largely static. Again this can change if needed.

 Orlanth wrote:
Take a look at how China operates in Africa, its not considered a colonial policy for nothing. China has the muscle to control and secure oil access.

China's set up is far from new. In fact while they maintain much tighter control than any other country today, their control is nothing like that maintained by most countries decades ago. It didn't help anyone during the oil crisis. This is because your ability to strong arm the producing nation disappears when the global price spikes. Strong arming doesn't work when the global price is a few hundred dollars more per barrel than you want to pay.

Actually we make similar moves all the time. Our method is to selectively tax, we even do this for hybrid and electric cars and that has helped a trend. However our governments are not committed to the change.

Subsidies of new techs and flat out bans of old techs are very obviously very different things with very obviously different levels of political acceptability.

We allow the same profiteering over electricity as we do oil, electricity costs could be subsidised if the political will was there.

Electricity is subsidised. Do you think all those poles and wires run for hundreds of miles out to towns with two dozen people were done by a private company chasing a profit?