Jones Beene wrote:
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.
People in China can use hybrid cars too. In India and Pakistan they already use telepresence -- they are using it to take away our jobs! (Washington Post, "Virtual Secretary Puts New Face on Pakistan")
It would not take a decade to implement telepresence; it could be done in six months. If plug-in hybrid cars were developed in a crash program, they would replace most ordinary cars within five years or so, as the existing fleet wears out. I will grant that given present administration policies this will not happen, but it is technically possible. For that matter, this administration would never implement your idea either.
The bottom line is that if you have a gigawatt (thermal) nuclear pant - you might use that for 350 megawatts of electricity . . .
Actually more like 400 with combined cycle generators, but you make a good point.
for recharging batteries . . .
Do not forget that batteries are far more efficient than liquid fuel, and they can be recharged with wind or hydroelectric power.
--- or for 500 megawatt equivalents of hydrogen gas (latest figures) . . .
Unless you are talking about using fuel cells, the 400 MW electric output would provide more transportation than the hydrogen gas. For other applications, such as home heating in very cold places where heat pumps are not effective, hydrogen gas would probably be better.
--- 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.
That is an interesting idea but I am afraid it would end up destroying huge land areas, and reducing food production.
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 . . .
Telecommuting from home is not adequate for most workers. I am talking about something quite different: telepresence in satellite offices to establish a virtual, 8-hour presence.
Ethanol is not THE answer - but it is an effective stopgap solution for getting through the years 2007 -2015 .... IMHO.
I do not think it can replace more than a few percent of fossil fuel, unless we use heroic measures such as you nuclear power idea. It is very unlikely that will be implemented in the near future. A plan to use massive numbers of plug-in hybrids is much more feasible, much cheaper, and it would meet with no resistance from regulators or environmentalists. Also, you are talking about Brazil supplying the US with fuel. Even if Brazil can do this, it cannot supply 90% of fuel used everywhere in the world, whereas plug-in hybrid cars can reduce the petroleum fuel used in all the cars everywhere on Earth by 90%. (It would increase other fossil fuels to some extent.) An improvement in efficiency goes everywhere, and applies to all countries. Improving the output of synthetic fuel in one or two countries only improves the situation in those places (or in the country they export to). Most countries do not have any extra land to produce biofuel.
- Jed
