Well, it should be obvious that the technology of high-temperature
methane metabolizing fuel cell units installed in every home would 1)
save a lot of gas (non-Carnot plus electricity generation in situ
(hence no need for long-haul transport) coupled to warm water
generation) 2) be virtually emission free 3) eliminate brownouts 4) be
relatively easy/cheap to develop.
The same thing applies to composite-frame motor-in-wheelhub fuel cell
cars (Pt/Pd/Ru on carbon cloth, polymer proton membrane, methanol
onboard reformers). Of course development costs would be higher, but
consider the markets.
If we implemented them both the Inland Empire would be entirely
smog-free. However, home owners do not even insulate their
My suspiction is that people are unconcerned/ignorant enough not even
to demand an analysis.
Robert Bradbury writes:
> "quality" is a very loosely defined thing. The general impression that
> people have is that if some is good, more is better. That may be *true*
> to some degree, but it ignores the problem of diminishing returns and
> increasing costs for incremental improvements. My suspicion is that
> you should have a careful analysis of the marginal costs & benefits
> of each level of environmental milestones and implement each successive
> level only as the economy grows enough to support those additional
> quality improvements. But this type of analysis is very hard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:09 MDT