Re: longevity in 20 years

From: George William Herbert (gherbert_at_retro.com)
Date: 01/22/05 

Date: 22 Jan 2005 20:55:48 GMT

Eric Chomko <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
>Rand Simberg (simberg.interglobal@org.trash) wrote:
>: *** Morris wrote:
>: >I've asked you in the past for examples of the "ridiculous" things that
>: >environmentalists say but you have refused to provide them. So I'll ask
>: >again. Please provide complete, original references so we can see who
>: >actually said what.
>
>: Read almost anything that Paul Ehrlich has written. Or Al Gore's
>: belief that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to
>: our nation.
>
>Gore's comments about ICEs are based upon getting away from fossil fuel to
>using other forms of energy. And before you go off on a tangent about
>there not being any, blah, blah, blah...
>
>May it be your fate that if we never find alternate forms of energy other
>than fossil fuel, [...]

We *have* other forms of energy other than fossil fuel;
they are currently not cost competitive *for the most part*,
but some are, and the technology curves are rapidly changing.

Thermal Depolymerization, once adequately field demonstrated,
should let us turn just about any garbage into fuel, and most
of what goes into it is coming out of live carbon cycles so
it's a closed loop on CO2 emissions.

You can turn electricity into hydrogen now, if you want.
Or produce biomethane. Or biodiesel. Or ethanol or methanol.

Fuel cells are more efficient, but given a choice between
a renewable recycled carbon fuel input for IC engines and
a fossil fuel going into a fuel cell, I'd chose the IC engines.
Hydrogen right now is mostly produced from fossil fuel methane
reformed with steam.

To generalize, Environmentalists are stuck in a conceptual trap.
When their movement formed, it took one reasonable conclusion
(fossil fuel emissions are bad) and took it a step further
(IC engines are bad as well). At the time, IC engines more
or less had to burn fossil fuel. But that's not true anymore,
and the environmentalists have (as a social movement) not
taken the step back that logic now suggests.

I am all for society having less environmental impact and
reducing or eliminatng fossil fuels in my lifetime.
But I see a path forwards through technological
evolution rather than abandoning technology and
economic success for an agrarian commune.

Many factors indicate that the world's population growth
is slowing down and that it will level out. We do appear
to have the technological paths in front of us to allow
those people to industrialize and live high income rich
materialistic lives like we do in the US today, with a
significant total decrease in worldwide environmental
impact at the same time. The environmental movements
would do themselves and the world far better if they
started championing these technologies in a green
ecoeconmic power sense.

Why is the Sierra Club not offering to build a test thermal
depolymerization plant in California to turn city garbage
into fuel and eliminate the growth of landfills?

Why aren't the Green Party members in California calling for
tax breaks for ecoeconomic R&D and industrial production?

-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com

Quantcast