At 2:49 PM 4/15/5, Mike Carrell wrote: >Man could adapt, we have done so before and can do so again. Air cargo is a >significant factor in international commerce, which gets fresh fruit from >South America into our supermarkets in January. Dwindling oil reserves could >be directed to such use [at what cost?] until a substitute for the jet >engine [quite effiecient, even used on ships] is found. Without air cargo, >we move back a half century, and life wasn't bad then.
If everything but jet fuel is replaced with renewables then oil products should be extremely economical. Jet fuel should be cheap. However, there is no reason a suitable jet fuel can not be economically made from biological sources, like steam reforming of waste fats and garbage, etc. In addition, if a true renewable hydrogen economy is develeoped, and hydrogen is cheap, a synthetic jet fuel made from hydrogen and renewable carbon sources is also a possibility. Also of possible interim interest is the fact that ship turbines can coverted to run on LNG, and LNG fuel would provide a low pollution risk. > >My point in the essay is that wind and solar have well known problems, and >hydrogen storage and distribution on the scale necessary to sustain our >present lifestyle is not attractive. Well this is true if you find the Hirsch study credible, for example. It is a study on the effect of peak oil on US transportaiton fuels noted here on vortex in earlier discussions. However, that study seems to ignore or at least inadequately address the potential role of renewables, while focusing on the use of coal and oil, as if a global warming issue did not exist. Further, it shamelessly plugged topics for further "study". It appeared fully sanitized to fit the present political paradigm, and looked like typical "consulting" where the conclusions are all known before the study. OTOH, it does point out that if nothing is done we could get caught in a real jam for 10-20 years, and that may be a big surprise to many, so I guess I'm being a bit harsh about what I perceive to be the study's short comings, though I guess the approach of pointing out the obvious problem with an oil peak *is* a powerful reason to throw big money at big oil and coal. >However, BLP technologies offer a way >forward which can work along with hydrogen produced from wind and solar >sources. In transportaiton systems, it can greatly increase the energy yield >from whatever hydrogen is stored, making that system more viable. [snip] >Mike Carrell The problem with BLP commercial products is they are still just pie in the sky, and have been for years. Thee have been various other apparently promising companies, but obviously nothing has yet materialized. Meanwhile the US could have been moving forward on a strong renewables program, like various other countries have. A properly funded renewables agency operating under the guidelines proposed in The Energy Legacy Plan can move forward on a rational basis, starting now, without continued debate by congress, political candidates, and "experts." Once formed, the decision by congess mainly involves only how much money should be provided from time to time, not all the technical details. If a breakthrough product is developed by BLP or anyone else along the way, the funding would end up channeled appropriately. Regards, Horace Heffner
