[extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 10:24:58PM -0700, spike wrote:
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of user
> > Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ?
> ... 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > 
> > > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy
> > > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who
> > > knows not what they ask for...
> 
> User, I could see ethanol as a transition phase, where we add 

Why ethanol, on earth? Why not synmethanol? Or biodiesel, if
you absolutely have to curry favors to big dirty agribusiness?
Why not simply lighter, more efficient vehicles (my car averages
about 6.2 l/100 km, which is probably half or less of the typical
U.S. car, not even SUV)? 

> more ethanol to gasoline over about a decade, to take advantage
> of the infrastructure already in place.  We could use the

An onboard fuel reformer, or a high-temperature fuel cell
would make the most advantage from the infrastructure in place.

Alcohols are too corrosive for the current infrastructure, unless
used just as additives -- but why bother with footnotes?

> existing gasoline stations, pumps, etc.  Most modern internal
> combustion engines can run on about 15% ethanol with no
> modifications, and can go up to around 25% without too much
> effort or expense.  

What is the half life of a modern car? A few years, typically.
It would make more sense to just stick to new vehicles.
 
> An ethanol-gasoline mix could carry part of the load 
> while we gear up nuclear and coal fired power plants as well

Nuke? Coal? Are you crazy?

> as refineries suited to processing sour crude.  We will need 
> a few years to get cars adapted to use electricity.  Ethanol 

EVs are around. You won't achieve a redesign in a few years, 
at least as long as established manufactures are merely sticking
to putting lipstick on a pig.

> could help get us thru the transition.

No, it would be a big mistake to make. Biodiesel would be
a far smaller mistake, if you insist to make any.
 
> Here's a notion I had today.  Assume a temporary
> oil crisis such as one caused by Katrina.  We know that

This isn't just Katrina: 

http://benzinpreis.de/statistik.phtml?o=7&jahr=2005&sorte=Normal

> a 5% shortfall in supply can cause a huge and destructive
> surge in price.  On the other hand, a small fuel savings
> could easily cover a 5% shortfall in supply.  A government

Or you could just use a price ratchet via taxes, allowing
a monotonous slow increase in prices. We've been at 
>6.5 US$/gallon for a long time. You'll get used to it, too.

> could declare a temporary open season on what types
> of vehicles are allowed on the roads.  Many homes have a 
> dirt bike or other small rec vehicle that could be temporarily 
> declared street legal.  We could declare a temporary 50 mph 
> speed limit for the month of September, in all but the far
> left lane.  This might encourage people to ride bicycles, 
> motorized scooters, go carts and dirt bikes on the street 
> for a few weeks, just long enough to get thru the crisis.

The crisis is completely artificial. I don't think your legislation
changes have any real bite to it.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050902/9bb103a6/attachment.bin>