Michael Tobis wrote: > Yes, of course we can and should improve our liquid fuel consumption.
> This strikes me as a golden opportunity as much as it is a threat. I > am so tired of the pessimism and confrontational attitude that > prevails today. I don't deny that there is a threat, but it really > disturbs me that you don't want to acknowledge the opportunity. [cut] >... Still. consider > this. The best outcome for the world with CTL is a serious > sequestration program, leading to achievable non-nuclear low emissions > energy supplies for non-mobile sources, meanwhile kicking the support > out from under the denialists. (The reward for the coal folks is that > they win out over the corn people.) I think this scenario is > achievable and is much better than no liquid fuel, no sequestration > infrastructure, and continued bullshit from Singer and Lindzen and > company. There are many other choices possible. You are ignoring the fuel switching option, where fossil fuels, such as natural gas, may be moved from one end use to another. Diesel engines have been run on natural gas, such as in bus fleets in Atlanta. Biomass sources can be used to produce liquid fuels and also used to replace coal in steam electric generating power plants. The coal now burned in electric generation could be switched to produce some diesel to replace some of that now produced from petroleum. Electric vehicles do work and can be powered by renewable sources. > So instead of "No to CTL" say "No CTL without sequestration" and mean > it. How about if we demand two units of CO2 sequestration for each > unit of emissions? Then it is effectively a zero emissions solution. It would seem obvious that the transportation sector offers many possibilities for demand reduction. Diesel engines in cars is a first step, as well as a switch from truck to rail transport for moving goods around. Truck transport is faster and point to point, which fits the rapid just-in-time manufacturing we see in today's model of industrial production, but uses about 3 times as much diesel fuel per ton-mile as rail. There's lots of shipping (such as UPS or FexEx) via overhight air freight which could just as well be moved a little slower by truck. But, what is proposed is a system of government loans. What if that $10 Billion were loaned to individuals who wanted to improve the insulation of their houses or add solar thermal heating? If a limit of $5,000 per house were offered, that $10 Billion would reduce the energy consumption of 2,000,000 houses. The result would be a permanent reduction in energy use and CO2 emissions by individuals. The energy not used would be available for other uses. Another option would be to build wood pellet mills, which might cost a few million each. Presently, there are some 60 mills operating in the U.S. supplying many home and industrial heating systems. What if the Government were to loan that $10 Billion to add new mills? If $5 million were allowed for each, that would lead to the addition of 2,000 new mills, spread all across the country, giving local energy systems which would be redundant and resilient to disruptions. Fuel pellets can be made from switch grass, as well as wood waste, etc. There have been many studies of alternatives to fossil fuels. Even British Columbia could become energy self sufficient using renewable sources, according to one such study: http://www.globe-net.ca/documents/GLOBE_EndlessEnReport.pdf To some extent, this is a zero sum situation in that there is a limited amount of money available to build the various systems. Choosing a coal based approach may lock out the other approaches, especially after Peak Oil hits the consciousness of the general public. The resulting pressure to do something quickly to keep things moving could overwhelm the more rational choices of long term sustainable alternatives. E. S. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
