> A) A field of some size planted with some plant that grows over some time
> and is then harvested, fermented to alcohol or oil extracted and that
> resulting product burned to move a car down a road.
> 
> B) A field of the same size covered in solar panels or other means of
> electric power generation and that power stored in batteries and used to
> move a car down a road.
> 
> Which one:
> 1. is less costly to implement?
> 2. moves the car further over some set time (say 1 year)?
> 3. is more repeatable / renewable?

I've wondered about this myself.  I've come to a few conclusions:

A has the advantage of little to no maintanence (some will disagree,
citing combines, tractors, irrigation, etc., but I maintain that working
smarter would allow us to reduce the technology involved to a
minimum), as well as producing useful O2 and reducing CO2.

B has the advantage of continuous output:  18-20% of the light
falling on it is captured and converted constantly, whereas the 
plants capture sunlight over a growing season (or however long
the time between harvests), and probably not 18-20%.

Someone mentioned rafts of algae in the ocean.  TANSTAAFL-
That would probably unbalance the food chain in the ocean,
by reducing the amount of sun available to native organisms,
and would also reduce the surface temp of the ocean.  And
who can say what effect that would have?

Mike H.

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist