Tom Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rouse yourself, Jay, and give us your take on the following article:
I haven't seen any reply from Jay Hanson yet, but I can think of a
few points he could make.
Gas (mostly methane, I suppose) still does contain carbon and
therefore will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere like all fossil
fuels. -- On the other hand, it is possible to split off the hydrogen
from methane by heating it to a high temperature, and that could
conceivably let us just burn the hydrogen for fuel.
Gas is also a gas, not the convenient liquid that people use in cars.
-- On the other hand, it is possible to partially polymerize gas to
form a liquid like gasoline (but that liquid would still contain the
carbon and lead to more atmospheric carbon dioxide.
If worldwide consumption of gas is 1 billion tonnes a year now and
there are 140 billion tonnes known to exist now that does not mean we
have 140 years to use it up, because if we "leave oil in the ground"
and use gas instead its consumption will be much higher. -- I don't have
a answer handy for that one, other than to mention the "200 to 300
billion tonnes still to be discovered".
And finally, Jay's trademarked comment: at some point in the near
future the energy-cost of recovering the gas will exceed the amount
of energy it provides. -- Well, at some point that will probably
happen, but it might be a century away, which would give us time
for all sorts of inventive ideas to be made reality.
So, all in all, I'd say it's well worth thinking about gas.
dpw
Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html
