[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The question is: if it’s possible to run a viable transportation system like the one we have now on coal or nuclear or solar or hydrogen or whatever, why aren’t we doing it already? Because we love the Saudis and Chavez so much that we’re voluntarily propping up their economy? No, we’re not running our transportation system on these other fuels because it’s too expensive to run that amount of traffic using those technologies (including all their immediately foreseeable developments).
[/QUOTE]
Well…no. Thats not the case. The reason we aren’t using those alternatives now is simply because they cost more than what we have. Why WOULD we spend more for energy than a cheaper alternative? Seems obvious to me.
The reason we don’t exploit shale oil, tar sands, etc (which is what you cited from me) is because it costs more to get at them…and why exactly would we spend more when we can get oil cheap in the currently developed fields? Just for the sake of doing it? As those easy to get at resources are used up and become scarce though, the more difficult to get at and develop ones will become viable…and we’ll be able to continue to run the same ammount of traffic we currently do. It will simply cost more. But there is more exploitable oil locked in shale than there ever was in the Middle East, and I believe that goes for the tar sands in Canada as well. Once the investment is made to go get it (and it will be a rather large capital investment to exploit those resources…note though that Canada is ALREADY taking steps along those lines, and I believe that Shell is re-newing its interest in the shale oil in the Rockies), its not like the oil flowing out will be a trickle. It will be a flood…and EXPENSIVE flood, but a flood all the same. Also, the logistics of getting it to the refineries here will be a bit easier than the current tanker system…maybe pipelines directly to the refineries on the gulf coast, maybe new refineries on site.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
So when petroleum becomes to expensive to use as fuel for transportation will the cost of coal conversion suddenly drop because the timing is convenient? Again, the answer is an obvious no - what we’ll have is a system with no viable fuel source instead of a system with one viable fuel source. Sure you’ll be able to drive cross country - if you’re willing to pay $2000 for the fuel (and it makes no difference if that fuel is gasoline or hydrogen or coal extract). The point is that nobody can afford to use cross country shipping when fuel costs that much.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it might (just developing this technology process on the scales we’d need, for coal say, would probably spark innovation and competition and could potentially drive the price down), but I don’t think anyone is saying that it will. In fact, most acknowledge that the cost of fuel will indeed go up, quite significantly.
But you see, your hyperbolic example of $2000 (I assume for the equivelent of a gallon today) is just that…hyperbole. I’m thinking fuel may go as high as $8/gallon…maybe $10/gallon (talking here in the states) when these alternatives will become economically feasible. I believe I read somewhere that the tar sands in Canada will start becoming viable around those levels. At, say, $12/gallon (I’m just WAGing here), perhaps shale oil becomes economically viable to begin extracting. Also around that price perhaps hydrogen fuel cells or methane fuel cells become economically viable (might be even before this threshold).
Far cry from $2000 a gallon.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
There are possible solutions. But they’ll need some radical advances in technology. The kind of advances that will probably take two or three decades to develop and cost a lot of research dollars. So we need to admit now that this is a real problem and start working on some serious searching for solutions.
[/QUOTE]
But the don’t. There are plenty of technologies in the wings that you seem to completely discount in a ridiculous hyperbolic fashion. Shale oil is real. There is a LOT of it. Tar sands are real. There is a LOT of oil there as well. They don’t have to wait until the price is $2000/gallon before they are economically feasible.
Nuclear power? Nothing new or radical there…just have to get the eco-facists out of the way. FUSION of course is one of your advanced technologies…but fission will work just fine, and there are some rather good advances going on (sadly) in other countries like South Africa, China and France.
Hydrogen fuel cells? This isn’t radically advanced technology…its under development by several car companies. I believe that Toyota is planning on introducing its version (in theory) sometime in the next decade. Chevy is claiming they will have one ready by something like 2010. I remember reading that Shell and BP both tested pilot hydrogen filling stations, and I don’t recall any insurmountable hurdles there.
Hybrids are getting better and more efficient all the time…this generation of hybrids is an order of magnitude more reliable and get even better gas mileage than the first ones released. Batteries are getting smaller with higher capacities. None of these things are radical or highly advanced technologies…they are technologies that are either here now or nearly ready for prime time.
And of course there are breakthroughs that we simply can’t predict, new materials being developed constantly. But for the next few centuries I don’t think we need to count on Star Trek solutions to get us to work or to pick up that KFC dinner…
-XT
I said that tongue in cheek…and also to see if anyone was paying attention.