Jed,
I do not understand why you are so gung ho on the idea of making
more liquid fuel when you know that with hybrid cars,
telepresence, and other innovations we can reduce the demand for
fuel by a factor of two today, and by a factor of 10 within a
few decades.
I think when you factor in population growth, increased wealth,
increased demand overseas. immigration and so forth - that hybrid
cars, telepresence, and other innovations will reduce the demand
for fuel by a factor of two within a decade, not a few years - but
the supply of liquid fuel will go down at a faster rate - and be
bid up by China, India and the emerging third world.
We will have a hydrogen economy - I am convinced of that.
But in the early years of the hydrogen economy is underway and
which can start in ernest in 2007 with a major high-level push -
the best use of hydrogen will be not as a stand alone fuel but
instead to be used as fertilizer for multiplying the energy
content into ethanol as the stand-alone fuel, which is - in
effect - only a carrier of hydrogen.
The bottom line is that if you have a gigawatt (thermal) nuclear
pant - you might use that for 350 megawatts of electricity for
recharging batteries --- or for 500 megawatt equivalents of
hydrogen gas (latest figures) --- OR instead, multiply that energy
content enormously by going to a more complex system of
hydrogen --> ammonia --> fertilizer --> ethanol ... and with the
aim of getting 5 gigawatt-equivalents of ethanol from the original
500 megawatts of hydrogen. Its pure economic expediency.
We can multiply the energy content of every gigawatt of (nuclear
or wind produced)hydrogen by perhaps a factor or 10 or more
(maybe) for at least the time frame for a "real" solution to come
along ... PLUS get the benfit of a liquid non-fossil, carbon
neutral-fuel to boot - by going to the complex process mentioned
above.
The "real" solutions would be LENR, hydrino, or ZPE magnetic
converters - or the other high-tech promises which are on the
horizon, but not yet reduced to prototype.
Why use the energy in the first place when it is cheaper, safer,
faster and more convenient to *not* use it, by employing
advanced technology?
You are even more idealistic than I am ! That advanced technolgy
you speak of is either not here yet, or too-little too-late, or in
the case of telecommuting already in use, or in the case of
hydrogen - better used as fertilizer to get ethanol.
Ethanol is not THE answer - but it is an effective stopgap
solution for getting through the years 2007 -2015 .... IMHO.
Jones
