Re: Art, where's the buzz on nanotech saving America today?

BMJ wrote:
Threeducks wrote:

I'm not convinced this stuff is the way to go. It's more expensive than
regular gasoline, and you get fewer MPG. The guys who are basically
converting garbage to ethanol may have a market (and I applaud their
efforts), but the idea of growing corn to make ethanol is a dumb one.

Why?

There's been an on-going debate about how much petroleum is left and
when the peak in production has occurred or will occur. Nobody knows if
there any new reserves will be found, where they might be, and how large
they are. Once the known reserves of hydrocarbons are gone, what's
going to replace them?

At least with biofuels, there's going to be a renewable supply of feedstock.

As much as I tend to argue with Threeducks, I'm in agreement here.
Biofuels will mainly be for rural dwellings than for any urban center.

As for petroleum, for the near future, there's the Alberta sand tars
and for the long haul,
there's synfuel, coal to gasoline,
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/aboutus/history/syntheticfuels_history.html
and the US has two centuries of coal underground.

Afterwards, that is if there's a world in the 23rd century, we'll have
innovate in the solar realm that is if they're not suffering from
another "S&E shortage" during that time.

.

Quantcast