[Tarpon]

All well and good, but how does this reduce net CO2 given off? By my guestimate all these alternate fuels do is change the point of CO2 discharge, increase the absolute quantity, and drive up costs.

So when Peloser says she wants mandatory carbon limits, what does that mean except higher taxes to reduce consumption.

Nuclear is the only technology that actually reduces CO2 discharge and can do even the smallest amount towards reducing the 0.2% CO2 that man puts in the atmosphere. About 20% of the America's electricity comes from nuclear, why not make that 100%. If you don't want to go nuclear, then I assume your motives as suspect.

That is, if reducing CO2 emmissions really is the goal and not world socialism.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Good writeup.

Too bad 99% of the MSM (and almost all Americans) can't follow (nor even understand!) his logic.

[Bryan24]

What we need is a multi-tiered approach.

1. Nuclear Power for 100% the nation's power grid.

2. Develop Bio-fuels, alcohol, methanol, bio-diesel, etc.... City Buses, school buses, garbage trucks, big vehicles with diesel engines but geographically locked to a specific area, convert to biodeisels or biofuels or other alternate fuels.

3. Use wind power, solar power, hydro-power to crack hydrogen from water to power fuel cells.

4. Start using the higher-efficiency diesel engines in Vans, SUVs and small cars.

5. Pass federal legislation that any vehicle getting 50 mpg or better can be purchased tax free (no city, county, state or federal taxes).

[rbosque]

The left will still whine about something else. It's in their nature. Bunch of cry-babies!

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

A very good read..... It makes sense and deals with the realities of all the hype around HF.

I still don't think alcohol fuels will be able to meet the demand however, it would stress the agricultural industry beyond it's capacity. It would require many diverse forms of fuels to meet each area of demand.

We will also find it difficult to eliminate the use of crude oil. There are countless chemicals, plastics, medical supplies, road building materials, lubricants, etc,,, that comes from oil. less than half of oil production goes to make fuels for automobiles. The lions share goes into most of our everyday items we take for granted.

[Hot Tabasco]

I was following all this pretty good until they had to throw in the numbers 205 kcal/mole, via the following reaction: CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O ÄH = 205 kcal/mole . They lost me there.......

[SunkenCiv]

from February, Robert Zubrin (that’s why I pinged AntiKev).

[-YYZ-]

Long read, I’ll finish it later.

[colorado tanker]

The trouble is that making hydrogen requires more energy than the hydrogen so produced can provide.

Unless and until the Laws of Thermodynamics are repealed, that is true of every energy source. The relevant question is how much the production of this energy source costs.

Ethanol also costs more energy to produce than it can provide. Although ethanol is much less costly to produce than hydrogen, it is still costlier than oil, which is why it is only produced due to mandates, subsidies and high tariffs against imports, and it now appears also at the cost of distorted grain and foodstuffs markets.

Rather than a government solution of mandates, subsidies and tariffs, we ought to look at market-based solutions, such as replacing oil and gas power generation with nuclear and taking the government restrictions off oil production in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf and domestic gas. Sensibly done, ethanol will be part of the mix, but not the sole answer.

Hydrogen, absent a technology breakthrough, is likely a long-term solution, when (and if) demand for oil, supplemented by ethanol, drives its price so high as to begin to make hydrogen an attractive alternative.