Asphalt used on road surfaces are byproducts from fossil fuel. With the ultimate goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuel to combat climate change, are there any good alternatives for road surfaces? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a viable replacement of asphalt in the works, or even a plan to replace it in any environmental discussions before. At least, not enough for me to notice.

Extented question would be: what are some products derived from fossil fuel that are used in everyday life, but still lack viable alternatives you don’t see enough discussions about?

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we eliminate the use of fossil fuel to combat climate change, our agricultural output will drop enormously and a significant fraction of humanity will starve to death.

    I think if you‘re driven to find non-fossil road pavement strategies, you should refocus your efforts on finding non-fossil sources of nitrogen for fertilizer.

    Food is way more fundamental than roads, and it’s far more heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

    • falkerie71@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well this thread is a discussion on alternatives and what you think are not talked about enough, so thanks for informing about fertilizers. I certainly didn’t know that they were also reliant on fossil fuel.

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your logic doesn’t make sense. Reducing the use of fossil fuels in other things leaves more for use of growing food.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, they mean the Haber process that requires energy-intensive (can mass-solar do it?) hydrogen to convert nitrogen back into ammonia.

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s about return on energy. Fossil fuels return 20x what you invest it’s essentially free energy.

            (edit: roughly, this translates to how many people are free to do things with the work of one, if every person lives alone, it’s 1, if each person has a personal slave/robot, it’s around 2, we want to stay well above 2. Modern society has 19 people doing all sorts of non-survival things for each one farming and collecting resources because fossil is so “cheap”)

            Renewables can reach 5-10 at best, which is not so bad (medieval was around 1.3, pre-industrial with slavery was around 1.8), so you can do it, but it will have to reshape society, which will be fine, if we know what we’re doing or can at least imagine what we are aiming for to avoid disappointment. It’s hard to be utopian going backwards.

            This whole debate started with carbon footprints and carbon pricong, because I believe that creating a market can help the less virtuous among us to use their greed to help solve the problem of public consent in a consumerist society without devolving into a dictatorship.

            But yea, let’s aim for that energy return of say… 7 and try to imagine what such a society would look like. A return to slower shipping by sail again…more solar boilers for all hot water…solar desalination…peak-solar hydrogen for fertilizers and airplanes…more compact cities with mass transit and bikes, lots of working from home, more fixing things DIY…a return from cities to the countryside and decentralisation would help, but only if those communities were more self-sustained and local, with 2x more power to farming, mining and wind/solar communities (meaning potentially smaller countries)…now I could describe all the potential setbacks of all of those points, but I won’t, because this is solarpunk and we need more imagining of what things are going to be like when we succeed…not so much the year 500 :)