From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 00:02:30 MDT
On Monday 25 August 2003 22:31, Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Spike66:
> <<To state that wind power cannot replace hydrocarbon
> burning is simply absurd. We really can do it all with
> renewables: wind, water and sun. Sure it would require
> a lot of costly infrastructure, but that is the beauty
> of capitalism: it gets things done. Right now, so much
> of our capital is idle, doing nothing but bidding up
> the prices of each other's homes to absurd levels, such
> as those seen in the Sillyclone Valley. Let's cut that
> nonsense and build something!>>
>
> We can't drive automobiles on wind and solar power as yet.
Well, we can drive them on electricity produced by a variety of processes
including wind, solar, biomass, SPS, nuclear... whatever.
This is despite
> the TV jourmalism of the local variety; who spout on about solar cars, for
> the last 35 years. Let the engineers produce, as an example, a methanol
> powered vehicle, that has gotten its methanol from wind powered generators,
> via the splitting of water, and the combination of a carbon source. Let us
> have a scientific estimate on how many windmills will be needed to replace
> oil wells, analyze the cost of production; and see if there is any profit
> at all!
>
I agree that wind and solar (at least at earth's surface before the advent of
nanomaterial covering quite a bit of everything), isn't going to replace
gas/petroleum. But taking advantage of some of all available ways to crack
out hydrogen and/or produce electricity and going to electric or fuel cell
transporation is certainly doable and not horrifically expensive to gear up
to. If we count all the cost of our oil, including entanglements in nasty
and costly messes, a percentage of the cost of fighting and cleaning up after
terrorism and so on, the costs for our current choices is a good bit higher
than what we pay at the pump. Where is the profit in $40 billion
dollars/month poured into the sands of Iraq? How much more profit will be
poured out when Saudi Arabia blows up in our faces? As I see it, we cannot
afford to depend on oil any longer for so much of our power needs.
> Alternatively, use beamed down power from Gigantic solar power sats, to
> split water into Hydrogen and oxygen; then add a carbon source and...you
> get the idea. There may actually be a dark horse energy miracle, if Craig
> Ventner is able to create a bacterium that likes to make plentiful amounts
> of hydrogen, without ruining the ecology of the oceans; should such a biug
> escape into the Pacific.
>
Yeah. Some of these are certainly worthwhile.
> Alternatively, there are some prodigious petroleum and natural gas sources
> that apparently have been ignored because of the massive volume and clever
> marketing of OPEC oil. Yet, that take political will to go after, and it
> looks like the current generation of pols, are fresh out of political will;
> them ignoramuses, corrupt, or both.
>
Oil is too bloody useful to simply burn for power even if you could stop being
dependent on very politically messy MidEast sources.
> Or have I missed your reasoning on this account? We have lots of technical
> demonstration devices; yet none that I have heard of are anywhere near
> affordable
Well, I've looked forward for awhile to paying off the Pontiac Grand Prix. It
gets an average 24.9 mpg. Not terrible but I am seriously considering
trading it in for a hybrid like the Prius.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 00:09:27 MDT