Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: theBuckwheat

"Even so, the capacity of the electric grid and local distribution system will have to be doubled or tripled to handle any widespread use of these vehicles."
_______________________________

You're right. The alternative will be to go backwards as a civilization. We won't build addition pipelines to bring in more natural gas. We won't build more refineries to process oil. We won't explore for more oil. We probably won't build more nuclear reactors and upgrade our distribution grid. Somewhere along the line we have to grow up and tell the "greens" sit down and let the adults run the show.


89 posted on 08/12/2006 8:44:12 PM PDT by wmfights (Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The WAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights

It is not that we cannot build these facilities. I think we don't have to because, as I have posted elsewhere on this topic, we are afloat on hydrocarbons just waiting to be converted to liquid fuels. We have decades worth of these fuels, if we would only access them.

We cannot draw lines on a map, outlining areas were we refuse to drill for oil, and then honestly claim that we "depend" on foreign oil. It is just silly to do so!

I would love to stop burning hydrocarbons, especially coal for generating electricity. But nothing beats gasoline for energy density. Liquid fuels are wonderful for mobile energy needs. If we use batteries, the laws of physics demand that we recharge them by some source. That today means mostly coal. Coal, IMO, is the last thing we should be burning for anything. But coal is a vast source of hydrocarbons for converting to clean liquid fuels.



91 posted on 08/12/2006 9:08:21 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson