From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 14:44:36 MDT
In a message dated 6/1/2001 3:35:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jamesr@best.com
writes:
<< On the surface it looks good, but in practice it is pretty inefficient and
expensive. Also, you still have CO2 and other emissions with ethanol.
>>
The production of ethanol will depend, not on tax incentives, but on recent
work at the U of Colorado, at Bolder, wherein the process of using cellulose
starch is eliminated completely, and cellulose is converted, almost directly
to ethanol. This is based on gene-splicing utilizing bacteria extracted from
Yellowstone National Park geysers and adding them to the non-high thermal
cousins. We shall see if this ever becomes economically viable.
But, at least, now it is a possibility. And yes, it will add to the COČ
problem marginally. More practical, are uses of coal gasification for either,
substitutes for expensive natural gas in power generator gas turbines, and
conversion of coal into high test gasoline. Again, there is COČ release to
produce-but much less the direct coal combustion or production of gasoline
from petroleum.
We need alternative energy systems, but for the most part, all we get is
tele-journalists pimping solar, without anything ever being applied, large
scale. This applies to fuel cell tech (which still requires a primary energy
source), mircoturbines, and yes, inherently safe fission reactors. Were I the
energy czar, I would be bringing and energy team together, with one goal:
sort what is achievable technically/economically with 6 years, and
back-burner-ing the longer term stuff.
Then see what is achievable in 7-12 years. To me, is an energy policy. The
rest is politics as usual.
Mitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:53 MST