From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 16:43:26 MDT
In a message dated 7/2/01 2:00:39 PM, mlorrey@datamann.com writes:
> I have not looked at the depression in the
>central Sahara that Robert is speaking of, so I don't know its volume
>below sea level.
It's big, but the Caspian is still much bigger.
>Ah, depends not just on the equipment for the cars, but infrastructure
>changes too. Going to a hydrogen fuel economy would cost a minimum of $5
>trillion.
The question of whether you're financially better off flooding the Caspian
basin
or converting to a non-fossil-fuel economy is an empirical question. $5
trillion
sounds reasonable to me - on very weak information - for the cost of the
basin.
What are the refs on the conversion cost? And how does it change if you do
it incrementally ( ie new equipment is hydrogen economy; old equipment is
retained for its economic lifespan).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:26 MST