"The cost of extracting or synthesizing the liquids, then transporting, storing
and pumping them would be far greater than the extra cost of a cold fusion
engine."
A quick cursory search shows the coal to liquid route to be less expensive than
current oil and, of course, S Africa has been forced on this route for decades
:"...Estimates of the cost of producing liquid fuels from coal suggest that
domestic U.S. production of fuel from coal becomes cost-competitive with oil
priced at around $35 per barrel, [ 51 ] ..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
" coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil
exceeds the $45-50 range, according to separate studies. This is because of
high front-end expenditures—a 10,000 barrel-a-day plant could cost $600-700
million or more to construct. All told, the refinement process is three to four
times more expensive than refining an equivalent amount of oil. When biomass is
mixed with coal, the process becomes even more expensive, and is only viable
with oil prices above $90 per barrel, according to the Department of Energy .
"http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/
Gas to Liquid may be even cheaper, especially for large stranded gas deposits
(eg North Slope).
How much does it cost to change a worldwide 1 billion car fleet (predicted to
>2 billion by 2030) to "series hybrid similar to the GM volt. this could be
done today with a steam turbine and condenser. In the future it will likely be
made with thermoelectric devices? " These hybrids are not cost effective,
without subsidies.
Sorry, cold fusion will change the world, but not transportation nor small
engine usage. It's the price that is the determinate, and liquid internal
combustion is optimized for transportation. The fuel is a small cost of the
total cost per mile for transport, easy to become confused on that fact. In
comparison, the fuel for electricity prod or water/steam/space heating is a
huge fraction of the cost.
