In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:08:33 -0400: Hi Lawrence, [snip] >Hi, Robin, > >Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point >out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, >I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. > >There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And >this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock >purposes, rather than fuel. > >No? > >Lawrence
The difference between us is that I believe we will shortly conquer fusion, making it available as an energy source. Once that has happened, everything changes for the better, and that's why I think your vision of the future is inaccurate. > >-----Original Message----- >From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] >Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:03 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear > >In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:16:47 >-0400: >Hi, >[snip] >>Someday, I imagine, humankind will rue having burned oil for fuel, >realizing >>that it was far more valuable as material feedstock for plastics than it is >>as fuel. It may be our children who come to realize this, and they may >>wonder why their parents and grandparents didn't realize it and why they >>didn't insist that oil be used only as a feedstock. >[snip] >I doubt it. A good organic chemist can make just about any carbon compound >from >just about any other carbon compound, given enough energy. >Even CO2 can serve as the source if really necessary. >So the only real limitation is adequate cheap clean energy. >Fusion in one form or another would provide this. > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
