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.
Sigh!
In a message dated 02/04/2000 4:55:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
butler@comp-lib.org 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 - 14:03:24 MDT