On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:27:51AM -0400, Vitaliy wrote:
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> >> 2. Developing lighter cars with more efficient IC engines.
> >
> > No. Oil and gas are non renewable, polluting, expensive resources. Retool
> > the infrastructure so that for transporation and heating you don't need
> > it.
> 
> First, there's actually lots of oil available, when people talk of "running
> out of oil" they mean the "easily accessible" oil.

I didn't say that we were running out of oil. I said it was non renewable.
Once it's consumed, it's gone and you're never going to get it back.

> When you have cars that
> get 100 mpg, paying $10 or even more per gallon isn't that big a deal -- and
> suddenly oil fields that were cost prohibitive to develop, cease to be so.

Other than the infrastructure that's been built around it, which was done
because it was cheap, there's no good reason to burn oil to travel.

> Second, if oil is not used to make electricity, there's less demand for it,
> resulting in less polution and lower cost per barrel.

Oil is a very small percentage of electrical generation. Much more oil is
used for heat that for electricity.

> Third, diesel engines do not necessarily need mineral oil-based fuel. They
> happily run on vegetable oil or peanut butter. At last year's annual Clean
> Air Conference (CAC) there was a presentation on using inexpensive algae
> farms to produce biofuel.

Now algae is interesting because it has the potential to be a renewable,
non food based biofuel. Plus in its production it consumes CO2. Both have
possibilies.

But you have to remember that the primary factor undergirding oil
fueled ICE engines was the seemingly inexhaustable supply of cheap oil.
Oil is never going to cheap again. Now is the time to move on.

> Fourth, diesel engines have a reputation for being dirty, but there have
> been significant technological breakthroughs in the past two decades that
> make it possible to talk about "clean diesel". A guy did a presentation on
> "Green Diesel" at a local SAE meeting, according to him there are cars on
> the roads in Europe that actually pollute *less* than gasoline powered cars,
> thanks to computer control and solid particle filters. Better refined fuel
> also makes a big difference.

Again I could work with algae based biodiesel. But it's unclear from a cost
standpoint where it fits.

> > Solar power satellites would become viable if we make the effort to lower
> > the cost of lifting stuff into space.
> 
> How likely is that?

Did you take a look at Loftstrom Loops?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

Buildable with current technology,
could lift billions of tons of material per year for dollars per kilo as
opposed to the thousands of dollars per kilo as it is now.

But it's yet another "If you build it, they will come" scenario. So it's
unclear outside of governmental fiat if anyone would take the risk to build
one. Maybe someone could convince Branson to build one for putting people
into orbit for Virgin, then leverage it for SPS construction.

> > But the cost of the oil to produce the diesel will keep rising. It's like
> > ther frog sitting in the pot of water that's slowing rising to boiling. By
> > the time you realize that you can't afford to keep doing it that way, it's
> > too late.
> 
> As I've said above, it's possible to reduce demand and increase supply, and
> there are alternatives to mineral oil.

But as long as the infrastructure for mineral oil is in place, no one has
an incentive to switch.

> > But there are virtually no EVs on the road. And that will continue
> > until gas and diesel cost too much for people to pay for.
> 
> We're starting to see it happen.

I certainly hope so.

> > It's really not a matter of storing energy. It's a matter of not having an
> > infrastrcture in place for fast refueling. The California PATH project did
> > studies on electrified roadways nearly 15 years ago. They had a 15 ton
> > electric bus drive continuously for 8 hours transferring power inductively
> > from the roadway. Put that technology into the nation's interstate highway
> > system and electric cars become practical.
> 
> I can't see this system being very efficient,

Tested at 60% effienciency with no substative measures. Considering that
gas and diesel are about 25% efficient and that's highly optimized, I don't
see that as being a problem.

> nor cheap.

Cost are unclear. But you can phase it in. We already have a plug in
electric grid infrastructure for EVs. So you only need to start building
for long range travel. Also since you have batteries it doesn't need to be
continuous. Nor does it need to be every lane. So you start with the
interstates and you embed a charging strip every 25 miles or so over a few
interstates across the country. Then start filling in the rest.


> Why spend the
> trillions that the new infrastructure will require, not to mention the
> pollution that it will create, when the IC infrastructure is already there?

What pollution? Interstates are under continual construction/repaving
anyway. Just phase this in as you repave. And again it doesn't have to be
dropped in wholesale.

But like everything else it's a chicken and egg problem. There won't be a
wholesale switch to EVs without the infrastructure, and the infrastructure
cannot be built unless someone is going to use it. So build part of the
infrastructure and incentivize (sp) its use.

The ICE infrastructure was built when gas cost 17 cents a gallon. Diesel,
hydrogen, or nothing else that needs to be burned will ever cost that
again. It's a mistake to try to leverage the existing infrastructure simply
because it's in place. It's a dead end and it's going to cost more both in
money and hassle to get out of it later than to get out of it now.

I snipped the free market/deregulation part. I'll tackle it later.

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