Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

I feel like I'm speaking to a ton of bricks. "He started it" is not an argument (see previous post of mine), yet you use it twice.

Negative behavior of Nick in other threads does not excuse similar behavior by Ken in this one.

Being condescending on the subject of economics by Nick in a previous thread does not excuse similar behavior by Ken concerning energy policy in this one.

But enough of this. It bores me, and everyone reading this. On to energy policy!

Converting coal to fuel for combustion engines: It might be economicaly possible when oil becomes too expensive, but the production will usuelly emit more carbon than pumping up oil and transporting/refining it. If you care about carbon emissions (as you well should, but this is a different discussion), this is a problem. If not, this might be a solution.
By the way, Ken mentioned China paying too much for oil while the US used cheap coal-based fuel. Don't count on it. China has large coal reserves as well (as does Europe), it evens out.

Using coal to produce energy: economically possible, but emits a lot of carbon. If you care about that, don't go coal: large scale storage of emissions is still only theoretical - might change though, so don't count it out.
However: coal will run out, and faster if we start using more of it.

Using Nuclear power: economically possible. But uranium will run out if we use more of it too. It's a 100-year stopgap measure (breeder reactors might change this, I'm not an expert; let's hope they do). And there's the waste: 300 milion Americans, 300 milion shot-glasses - that'll be a big hangover.

Solution: Hell if I knew. I keep my fingers crossed for nuclear fusion, but that's still decades away. It would solve a lot of problems, though. But I think solar would be a better bet for now.