A reduction in our use of fossil will lower cost somewhere and then others will use more. That is exactly my point – solar and nuclear are the technologies that can produce power in most areas of the world. Areas where there is no prospect of finding fossil fuels or growing enough biomass.

As for airplanes. They need high power/weight. Volume is also important. Alcohol isn’t the fuel. And hydrogen, even if proved, would require massive changes at every airport in the world.

If we concentrate on biomass or cleaning up coal or oil shale extraction, etc. we may get some relief but then we are developing methods that will not help most other nations clean up CO2 or reduce fossil imports. Solar and nuclear do both.

I regard the political problems with fossil fuels as more important than the likely price. That is why I don’t want more. And biomass crops, as I said, are not practical in huge areas of the world.

Batteries and pure electric vehicles will work when and if they work. I hope big improvements are near. And where does that power come from?

Fossil will remain the big vehicle fuel for a long time.

Biofuel would also keep air travel feasible, whereas battery charge densities and power output to weight ratios for electric motors don’t seem like they’ll be up to the task for decades yet.

As for other countries buying petroleum up at cheaper prices if we aren’t, this might follow in the short term, but there are two things that will change this. First, if we begin exporting biofuels as cheap or cheaper than petroleum, people will buy them. Second, petroleum is a fixed resource. As supplies begin to dwindle it will become too expensive and valuable (for making polymers and other chemicals) to burn as fuel. This has happened to humanity before. Witness the transition from wood to fossil fuel.

-Jim

As far aa the zero sum CO2 argument. Whether you grow for ethanol or food it cycles the CO2. So if you want higher food prices then promote biomass. Other nations will eagerly use fossil fuels as the price falls because we don’t buy them.

To really save fossil fuel promote pure solar and nuclear for electricity. Heat and cool buildings with the electicity and huge amounts of natural gas, coal, and oil will be saved.

Nuclear and solar are the two power sources that can be used around the world. Biomass is only feasible in a few areas. And the unequal distribution of fossil fuels causes terrible political problems.

As for nuclear bombs. About 10 nations have them. Roughly 30 countries can easily produce them. And many more could get it done with some difficulty. So nuclear war or terrorism is not going to be decided by power reactors but by political factors.

-Jim

I’ll still support ethanol motor fuel, come such time as they advertise that they are using stills running off nuclear-generated electricity

Ethanol, like gasoline, is a convenient way to transfer solar radiation into the fuel tank of a vehicle for use in internal combustion engines. Unlike gasoline, it does not come prepackaged for refining with a lot of other petroleum products, some of which are useful only to burn to heat the refining processes.

Nothing, however, stops you from distilling your ethanol with solar energy, or with corn stalk energy, or with burned corn kernel energy, or any number of other forms of energy which will work for simple combustion but are inconvenient for liquid fueled vehicle use. Useless? I think not.

-Jim