On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:13:28 GMT, fairwater@... (Derek Lyons)
wrote:
>beav wrote:
>
>>just because we have a thick oil sludge left over from the putative
>>bacteria, doesn't mean that we can't develop the chemistry that we
>>currently have. it simply pushes development of things like gasoline
>>and diesel fuel out farther in the time line.
>
>Without demand however, they remain largely laboratory curiosities.
>Keep in mind that in OTL the whole petrochemical industry arises from
>trying to find ways to use the waste products from producing lamp oil.
actually, a lot of the chemistry came from the development of aniline
dyes from coal tar, a plentiful waste product. its all applicable to
the petrol industry.
>
>Without those cheap and easily available and quite useful waste
>products being available in large quantities, everything changes.
that's why they call this newsgroup SHWI. :-)
>
>>heck. the leftover bacterial sludge is probably no differnt than what
>>we call 'tar sands' now that Canada has spent nearly $100B developing.
>
>Which are *only* worth developing because our society has a voracious
>appetite for petroleum products. In an era when gasoline sells for
>$.05/gallon, extracting gasoline that will cost $5.00/gallon or more
>makes no economic sense.
the energy density in a given quantity of gasoline or deisel fuel is
optimum for something like an internal combustion engine, whether its
reciprocating or turbine.
maybe developing tar sands or SASOL type Coal To Liquids is a spin off
from turbine engine development, based on its obtainable power, and we
bounce right past reciprocating engines.
plus we aren't talking about OTL. in an ALT, things will be very
different with regard to mass transportation and the shape of the
overall economy, and its concommitant demand for material like this.
$5.00/gallon fuel to fly 2050 era jet fighters (comparable to our 1960
versions) may be militarily essential.
>
>D.
|
