He wets his finger and pays attention to where it gets coldest before he
Well, here's where I think "the real" is headed, just because it's a
path of least resistance. I think that something that "gets" the carbon
out of exhausts, and maybe the nitrogen oxides too, is going to be the
next _big_ thing, generally because it's retrofittable, while old oil
remains King Log. But I'm not sure how soon it'll be, how it'll be
accomplished (I'm guessing bespoke thermophilic ((en)zymoids, catalysts
being less vexing than organisms), nor what regimes it/they'll fail
utterly at. If the booze-and-air fuel cells catch the wave and hit the
shore on schedule...in about 2002 in time for Christmas,
maybe...scavenging the carbon is all you need there. I don't know what
those fuel cells do with the carbon. My guess would be they take the
easy way out. :) I like the idea of a house fuel cell-heater-water
heater-water source a lot, and methane is an obvious fuel there.
> No offense taken or intended, I believe, I am just trying to focus on the
> real, rather then the ideal; which seemed to be where your critique was
> situated. As for 'exotic' power sources, I am all for them-as long as they
> can actuually work and people want to buy the energy they produce; including
> biofuel, fusion, solar, PowerSats, strange matter-whatever. As you already
> seem to know there is so much smoke and mirrors in anticipating future
> trends; that a more tactile approach is salutory-hence my focus on natural
> gas and wind. These seem to be the only real brightspots, in an otherwise
> gloomy energy outcome.
> Methane-would not necessarilly be the fuel for your engine or fuel cell-but
> merely the source, i.e. fuels derived from methane. Wind Power has been a
> decent success in europe and is making Pacific Gas and Electric some real
> valuta. Would that it were true for Drexlerian blacktop roads using nano to
> illuminate civilization, or or Uncle Arthur's Zero-point energy, in a can.
> In a message dated 02/04/2000 4:55:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> > I don't follow you. I was being silly about methane, and explaining some
> > genuine drawbacks of wind. You announce they are the growing-est. Great
> > for them--vote with your wallet.
> > Then you lose me. Things cost what they cost. Costs change over time. I
> > don't want a methane powered car badly enough to build one. I like
> > sailboats a lot, but they're very expensive, specialized vehicles.
> > Ground-floor apartment dwellers in tightly-packed suburbs don't get to
> > put up windmills, no matter how much they want to. That's real world
> > stuff too. You don't have to visit Tomorrowland. You don't have to ride
> > in one of the Mad Hatter's teacups, either. I am selective about "early
> > adoption", or I try to be. YMMV. Groovy, it's a big planet.
> > I am not trying to offend you, but you seem to have taken offense.
> > Puzzled,
> > MMB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:26 MDT