On Apr 11, 3:45*am, wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
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?

Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
to a screaming halt in the mean time.

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

Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.

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.

Weren't you the one complaining about hand wringing?

Did you miss the part about improving the technologies?

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:

Wind is not dependable as Texas has found out:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...2920080228?fee...
eedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Right now the delivered cost of solar is several times that of conventional
electricity, which is OK if you don't mind your electric bill being tripled.

The other minor problem with solar is there isn't any at night and peak
demand is around 8 to 9 pm most of the year. During Summer, there is
an additional midafternoon peak.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

But electricity currently has very little to do with oil.

If you want to do fuel synthesis with solar energy during the day,
the delivered cost needs to go down by an order of magnitude for it
to be viable unless you are OK with paying $25/gal for fuel.

That is going to take time and research.

--
Jim Pennino


To supply CA's 30 GW demand you would need about 300 square kilometers
of solar panels(assuming 100W/m2). That's a truly huge area and I
think it shows why solar is not a viable solution. If you now want to
add to that power for thousands of cars then nuclear seems to be the
only viable option.

Cheers