SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 393.24+1.1%Dec 11 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (4662)3/4/2006 7:51:58 PM
From: Seeker of Truth  Read Replies (2) of 218415
 
Biomass conversion to ethanol as a substitute fuel in place of gasoline to be sure does not create energy. But a huge amount of solar energy is landing on our planet unused. If we use it to grow cellulose in some form or other and "burn" the fermented cellulose then we conceivably could save money and make energy cheaper. I'm not here claiming that the biomass technology is now an accomplished fact. An economic scale plant has yet to be built.
The first integrated gasification combined cycle plant is supposed to go on stream in 2010. That will be something like 1/1000 th of the world's consumption of electric power, only a drop in the bucket.
The graphite ball U235 containers have also yet to appear in a commercial product.
Finally the carbon fibre car or truck is only somebody's dream; there is probably something wrong in the concept. Maybe carbon fibres are brittle. Or too expensive.
All these ways of getting more energy with less money are in the embryonic stage. In the next decade we can't escape $100 oil, just because of that.
Personally, I suspect that the IGCC electricity generator from coal will beat out its competitor, the graphite balls
containing a uranium isotope.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext