Chris Burck wrote: > oops, you're right, i didn't represent that entirely accurately. > thanks for pointing that out. my web correspondence is all via phone > these days, and w/o a proper keyboard my thoughts sometimes get > unintentionally compressed.
I hate it when that happens. :-) > but in effect, charging an ev would be > direct use of the solar as compared to using that same power, to > synthesize a fuel with which to power an ic engine. i'd wager that to > cover a given distance, the energy you'd need to charge your batteries > wouldn't get you past the first couple reaction stages in making the > synthetic fuel . also, the inefficiencies of ev's are pretty darn > minor. compare ~90% for ev locomotion vs. ~30% for combustion engine. > direct comparison of battery to liquid fuel is not valid because > elimination of the ic aparatus allows a much larger volume of battery > than of liquid fuel. Perhaps. The renewable fuel + ICE vs. Battery Electric Vehicle argument is well established in this forum, and I don't want to recapitulate it in this thread. > that said, i definitely would characterize the > energy density gap as narrowing rapidly. It is narrowing, certainly, but I suppose how rapidly it is happening depends on one's perspective. > the heinlein commemorative > sounds like it might have been interesting. kind of ironic that you'd > bring it up in the context of this discussion, since i don't think he > could have been further from the clarke-ian. he was one of the most > humanistic of his generation. This is true. I suppose my view would be more heinleinian than clarkeian. The result is the same. AP _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
