From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sun Dec 09 2001 - 10:31:49 MST
<<I read a recent analysis and the "wild card" that seems to be making the
Simons right and the Erlichs wrong is technology (driven by human ingenuity).
The geologists are figuring out how to get more of the oil out of the
ground and still aren't getting a large fraction of it. So there is
substantial room for improvement.>>
Yes, of course, but only at the right price. Please refer to our little
discussion regarding Wired magazines' article, on the prediction that at
27.00 per barrel, suddenly, converting methane gas to gasoline becomes
attractive. So too, will recovering oil from tertiary wells, heavy crude,
bituminous oil, etc.
<<If the plans the U.S. DOE has on the board for electricity production
get implemented over the next 10-20 years then I think the problem
is solved. Everyone knows we have several hundred years of coal
resources and the electrical production efficiencies are slated to
jump from ~35% to >80%. Several hundred years give us plenty of
time to switch to solar power and/or fusion. Cheap electricity lets
you switch to hydrogen as a locomotion fuel for most applications>>
I agree with your enthusiasm about coal availability and utility. One concern
is COš and CO˛ release into the atmosphere. Can we also develop cheap
sequestration processes for these gases? Consider that China, Russia, and
India wish to power their countries, and now that nuclear fission has proved
economically, questionable, have turned to coal.
In 1990 a group of Dutch economists suggested that hydrogen should be the end
result of a modern energy society. Furthermore, they decided that extracting
hydrogen from coal as much, nearer, technically, then electrolysis, or
biological methods, for cost effectiveness. A later study by 2 physicists at
Princeton University (1999) refined the Dutch study, and deemed that natural
gas (methane) appeared even better-simpler to break CH^4 into H˛.
Finally:
<<"It clearly is"? Basis for assertion please?
Take a look at 3D printers. What is there that is so hard to grasp
about the concepts of self-replication, exponential growth and the
concept of turning matter into "software"? >>
Let us say I mis-typed myself on that one-since I am a nano-ethusiast. I was
attempting to point out that nano as a manufacturing concept is very advanced
and is not the 'run of the mill', and is closer to one's fantasies for a
better world, yotta yotta.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:25 MST