ElM, it seems that you are saying that it's now economic to use chorophyl to make vehicle fuel out of sunlight, water and a few nutrients.
If that's the case, then all those people who think that oil prices have nowhere to go but up are sadly mistaken. Which, of course, they are.
It is vastly cheaper to produce more oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere than it is to mess about with plants. So, rather than see their cash flow dry up, the oil producers will do as they have been doing and increase production to keep the money rolling in.
Once they force people onto alternatives, they don't come back. With vehicle efficiency now at impressive levels with cars like the Prius and incy wincy little cars with tiny engines and multivalve engine management technology, car makers won't go back to old 1960s style V8 gas guzzlers. People won't pull out insulation. They won't turn off a nuclear power station, or unplug the photovoltaics.
Once people change, they change for good. Saudi Arabia wouldn't get them to change back at $5 a barrel.
Once crops are grown in vast quantity specifically for fuel, and the fermentation or micropulverizing are developed, they will have quite low costs per litre. If fibres are cut fine enough, they could be burned as cellulose [in a lot of systems, if not Otto cycle cars], omitting the fermentation process which wastes energy.
ElM, I'm not sure who you think started the revolution when you write "we". I guess you mean Brazil. I doubt that Brazil was the first place where fire was invented, or even fire inside an engine with ethanol as the source of flames. Brazil is just the first place to make a big-deal political issue of it thanks to economic ignorance, no oil, lots of land and lots of poorly paid people to do the hard labour. The USA has economic ignorance too, so has dopey agricultural subsidies.
Mqurice |
