Future-proof fuels

Unconventional fuels have the potential to significantly replace

conventional natural gas and mineral oil in the near future. These
include fuels made from bitumen and oil shale, liquid coal fuels,
methane from methane hydrates, biofuels, and hydrogen, a secondary
fuel. These fuels' presumable stocks, life-cycle wastes, emissions, and
natural resource inputs will all be examined in this section. When
compared to the existing conventional mineral oil and gas, the energy
efficiency of unconventional fuels is typically quite low from source to
burner. Their life cycles, with the exception of some types of hydrogen
and biofuel, are characterized by comparatively high water inputs,
emissions, and wastes. Shale oil, bituminous oil, coal liquids, and
methane from methane hydrates are examples of unconventional fuels
that are based on natural resources are essentially limited. Biofuels are
an exception to this rule, but their sustainable supply is severely
constrained when there is a need to feed a big population. There is a
rationale to examine fuel-less solutions for many fuel uses given the
issues with unconventional fuels.

-Types of fuels
1.Unconventional fossil fuels (also called: synfuels)
The US Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels (2007) chose
bitumen oil, shale oil, and coal-derived liquids as unconventional fuels
that will be crucial for replacing traditional mineral oil. Currently, only a
small amount of commercially viable coal, bitumen, and oil shale oils
are produced worldwide (Fischer 2005, van Dyk et al. 2006, Patel 2007).
Using gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, the South African
business Sasol, which has operations in Sasolburg and Secunda, is now
the industry leader in producing liquid fuels from coal (Hoogendoorn
1981; de Klerk 2008). Venezuela and Canada both engage in the
commercial manufacturing of synthetic crude oil from bitumen (Patel
2007, Attanasi 2008). Currently, countries like currently utilise shale oil
on a small basis. There have been proposals to combine the production
of synfuels with the sequestration of CO2 in aquifers or abandoned gas
and oil fields in order to reduce upstream CO2 emissions (Steynberg and
Nel 2004, Kintisch 2008). However, such sequestration also causes the
life cycle energy efficiency to decrease further (Rostrup-Nielsen 2004),
and it may increase hazardous emissions and compounds that may
cause eutrophication, acidification, and photochemical smog
(Koornneef et al. 2008).

2. Methane hydrates produce methane.

Methane hydrates, commonly referred to as "methane clathrates" or
"methane ice," are formed best under conditions of high pressure and
low temperature. These are ice solids that contain methane molecules
trapped in hydrogen bonds with water molecules (Buffett 2000). As a
result, methane hydrates can be found in sea sediments and the soil of
high latitude continental locations, with the latter having the biggest
supply (Rogner 1997, Buffett 2000, Fyke and Weaver 2006). There is
disagreement over the methane hydrates' genesis in the seafloor
sediments. Methane hydrate development is believed to be largely
influenced by biogenic sources (Fyke and Weaver 2006; Wagner et al.
2008), but it's possible that abiotic (thermogenic) mechanisms also
contribute significantly to their occurrence (Sleep et al. 2004). According
to Colwell et al. (2008), there are significant biogenic additions to the
stock of methane hydrates as well as significant losses (Buffett 2000). It
is unclear how losses and additions are balanced. Concerns concerning
the stability of methane hydrates in light of anticipated climate change
are increased by the possibility that they could become less stable when
local temperatures increase dramatically (Fyke and Weaver 2006).
Overall, it would appear plausible that methane from methane hydrates
may have a greater life cycle environmental burden than ordinary
natural gas.

3. A hydrogen economy

Since 2000, there has been a great deal of controversy over another
fuel: hydrogen (H2). The advantages of hydrogen have received a lot of
attention, with some forecasts reaching utopian proportions (e.g. Rifkin
2003). Like coal and oil shale, hydrogen does not fall under the
categories of primary energy or fuels. Hydrogen is a secondary fuel
since it must be created while consuming main energy, making it
equivalent to secondary energy carriers like electricity. Similar to
electricity, primary energy is required for its production, and the
hydrogen produced has a far lower "energy content" than the energy
used to produce it. H2 can be used in engines or fuel cells, which
produce energy. The former seems to have a greater life cycle energy
efficiency than the latter in mobile applications (Reijnders and
Huijbregts 2009). Large-scale use of hydrogen will necessitate a
significant redesign of the energy infrastructure, including the supply
system, as well as a significant effort to reduce the risk of fire and
explosion (Agnolucci 2007, Markert et al. 2007, Melaina 2007, Ng and
Lee 2008). Major changes in transportation modes and other fuel
consumers will also be required (e.g. Hoyer 2008). Moreover, using solar
or wind energy, it is feasible to create H2 from water (Armor 2005).
Compared to steam-formed methane, H2 produced by solar thermal
energy or wind energy has fewer life cycle emissions (Koroneos et al.
2004). Life cycle emissions are likely to be lower when H2 is created
from water using energy provided by cutting-edge solar modules than
when production is based on traditional fossil fuels (Jungbluth et al.
2005, Fthenakis et al.