On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
Alaska?

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.


There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.

None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
reduction in GHG emissions.


While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
becomes economically viable.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

http://www.doe.gov/pricestrends/5091.htm

http://www.news.com/Solar-cell-busin...3-6126962.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...ort/solar.html

====================
....demand is rising and [] the prices of solar cells, measured in cost
per watt, continue to drop. In 1980, a solar panel cost about $21 per
watt. (That is, each watt produced from the panel would cost about $21
each over the life of the panel.) Now it's about $2.70 per watt.

By 2010, crystalline silicon solar cells will sell for about $1.25 to
$1.50 per watt, while thin-film solar cells will sell for 90 cents to
$1.30 per watt. The thin-film cells, however, will be less efficient.

He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.
=====================

No unobtanium needed.