Jay Caplan <[email protected]> wrote: 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 . . . >
You are missing the point. You could make the cost of liquid fuel zero ($0.00) but cold fusion would still be cheaper. As I said, you still need fueling stations, trucks distributing the fuel, and people manning the gas stations. The minimum cost for that overhead is approximately $0.50 per gallon. A person driving a liquid fuel car would have to pay that overhead cost. A cold fusion car would have zero overhead cost. So even taking into account the premium you pay for the more complicated motor, it would be cheaper, except perhaps for a few people who drive only a little, like 15 miles a week. Also -- as I pointed out -- the cold fusion motor would soon be cheaper, as the technology matures. Two reasons: 1. No pollution control, gas tank, muffler, or catalytic converter needed. 2. Thermoelectric chips will be used across a much wider range of applications than a gasoline motor, so the cost per watt will fall lower than today's gasoline motor. - Jed
