My son-in-law, who teaches geology at a UC campus, has mkade a deal with the food sevice on his campus to transform +/- 50 gallons of waste kitchen grease into deisel fuel, sparing them the expense of disposing of it, and it is cleaner than oil based deisel fuel.  Wind power could generate almost enough electricity to ween us of foreign oil.  Harnessing tital flows could do the rest, and hybrid cars could make us energy exporters again.  So why are research and developmernt funds not being used to refine these technologies, which would make the midle east irrelevant?

My son-in-law, who teaches geology at a UC campus, has mkade a deal with the food sevice on his campus to transform +/- 50 gallons of waste kitchen grease into deisel fuel, sparing them the expense of disposing of it, and it is cleaner than oil based deisel fuel.  Wind power could generate almost enough electricity to ween us of foreign oil.  Harnessing tital flows could do the rest, and hybrid cars could make us energy exporters again.  So why are research and developmernt funds not being used to refine these technologies, which would make the midle east irrelevant?


Now we all know the answer to that question don't we.  ;)

Ploicy?

As long as we've got the oil boys in the White House, we shall be slaves to the Military-Petroleum complex.  The limitations on the government's ability to exploit alternative sources of energy are not of science, but of political imperitives.

My son-in-law, who teaches geology at a UC campus, has mkade a deal with the food sevice on his campus to transform +/- 50 gallons of waste kitchen grease into deisel fuel, sparing them the expense of disposing of it, and it is cleaner than oil based deisel fuel.  Wind power could generate almost enough electricity to ween us of foreign oil.  Harnessing tital flows could do the rest, and hybrid cars could make us energy exporters again.  So why are research and developmernt funds not being used to refine these technologies, which would make the midle east irrelevant?


I've followed a lot of these alternative technologies, and most of them don't scale well.  Sure a few people could run bio diesel cars, but could even 5% of the population? not likely.  Ethanol doesn't even come close to making a break-even on the cost of everything required to produce it.

Solar on the other hand, has had some excellent advances in the past couple years. There's been a few companies that have either come up with very cheap (but not highlt efficent) solar cells, and a couple with 30% efficencies but haven't figured out how to scale it up to production quantities yet. I'm willing to bet there's some very exciting solar breakthroughs on the immediate horizon due to new materials research.  People have been saying that since the 70s, but this time around there firms involved are nowhere near as flaky.

Hydrogren has had some excellent advances from the major car companies in the past couple years too, but production of it is still far too difficult.  If solar energy gets cheap enough though, that would change quickly, since hydrogen is essentially a storage technology.  Find a way to make cheap solar panels, even if they're not as efficent as the silicon ones, and stick 'em near the ocean (water source for hydrogen conversion) and you could make a bundle and shut down the oil companies once and for all.

It really breaks down to economics though.  If you tried to subsidize it from the government before the technology is ready, it would be a massive waste of money. Gas is over $5 a gallon in most of Europe, if there was a technology that was viable at that price point right now, Europe would have ditched oil a long time ago.

I've followed a lot of these alternative technologies, and most of them don't scale well.  Sure a few people could run bio diesel cars, but could even 5% of the population? not likely.  Ethanol doesn't even come close to making a break-even on the cost of everything required to produce it.

Solar on the other hand, has had some excellent advances in the past couple years. There's been a few companies that have either come up with very cheap (but not highlt efficent) solar cells, and a couple with 30% efficencies but haven't figured out how to scale it up to production quantities yet. I'm willing to bet there's some very exciting solar breakthroughs on the immediate horizon due to new materials research.  People have been saying that since the 70s, but this time around there firms involved are nowhere near as flaky.

Hydrogren has had some excellent advances from the major car companies in the past couple years too, but production of it is still far too difficult.  If solar energy gets cheap enough though, that would change quickly, since hydrogen is essentially a storage technology.  Find a way to make cheap solar panels, even if they're not as efficent as the silicon ones, and stick 'em near the ocean (water source for hydrogen conversion) and you could make a bundle and shut down the oil companies once and for all.

It really breaks down to economics though.  If you tried to subsidize it from the government before the technology is ready, it would be a massive waste of money. Gas is over $5 a gallon in most of Europe, if there was a technology that was viable at that price point right now, Europe would have ditched oil a long time ago.

Remember all those groovy solar panels on all those houses back in the '70s?  Some folks did make a go of solar power even though.  It was pretty tough to do it in New England, though.
Though there is not a viable alternative to supplant the majority of petroleum use, the effort to find one must continue!
One of the worst environmental decisions America made was the divestiture in railroads.  Right now we are so far from having a comprehensive passenger rail system it's sick.  It's not to late to start reforming and re-developing our rail infrastructure and technology.  Light rail and long distance high-speed rail would do wonders for this country.  Unfortunately, the same malefactor--the Military-Petroleum complex--will always be there to derail any such efforts.

Ploicy?




I wasn't watching his spelling when he created this thread.  ;)


We looked into solar power but as you said, Max, New England isn't the best place for it-not to mention that we are right smack in the middle of town with a church casting a shadow on our southern exposure. The said son-in-law put in solar panels and it does help. He is trying to keep a report on how well it works. Unfortunately, he had a few variables. Last Dec. they were away all month so their electrical useage was nil and this Dec. they had just about all the in-laws all month-and their useage was way above average.

I would love to see more renewable fuel sources in use but we all know that the oil industry has Washington in their back pocket-or is that Washington who has the oil industry in their back pocket-either way, the results are the same.  >:(




Cat

I wasn't watching his spelling when he created this thread.  ;)


We looked into solar power but as you said, Max, New England isn't the best place for it-not to mention that we are right smack in the middle of town with a church casting a shadow on our southern exposure. The said son-in-law put in solar panels and it does help. He is trying to keep a report on how well it works. Unfortunately, he had a few variables. Last Dec. they were away all month so their electrical useage was nil and this Dec. they had just about all the in-laws all month-and their useage was way above average.

I would love to see more renewable fuel sources in use but we all know that the oil industry has Washington in their back pocket-or is that Washington who has the oil industry in their back pocket-either way, the results are the same.  >:(




Cat


Here's another alternate source of energy - cowtricity, and the by-product can be used as gertilizer without creating phosphorous run-off.  Could be very lucrative in several states.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050115/NEWS/501150388/1004

Ploicy?

As long as we've got the oil boys in the White House, we shall be slaves to the Military-Petroleum complex.  The limitations on the government's ability to exploit alternative sources of energy are not of science, but of political imperitives.



Max, the US has grown its appetite for oil under both Democratic and Republican administrations.  In fact, the largest growth of gas-hungry SUV's happened during the eight years of the Clinton Administration.

But this post is not meant as an anti-Clinton rant.  Quite frankly I think that the American appetite for gas-hungry vehicles is a national disgrace.  I drive a very comfortable, and very fuel efficient Saturn that gets 42MPG on the highway and 25mpg around town on a bad day.  I also have a Ford Taurus that gets 30MPG on the highway and 25MPG city again on a bad day.  It is plenty roomy... as roomy as any car that my family had when I was growing up with 2 brothers.  There is no need for the MASSIVE SUV's and the generally USELESS pickup trucks that litter our highway and waste precious natural resources.  We did not need these in the 50's and 60's, and the average family of the 00's is smaller.

Some people say "let market forces deal with this", but I disagree.  SUV's should be subjected to the same fuel-efficiency rules as passenger cars.  So then manufacturers can either start developing fuel-efficient SUV's (and pickups, etc) or stop making them at all.

Both the Repubs AND Dems have screwed the pooch on this subject...

Don Carlos,

Kudos to your son in law.  Biodeisel is a cool way to conserve energy and cut waste.  Not a "total solution" but no ONE source of energy will solve the problem anyway.

Here is the LyricBoy Energy Policy:

1.  Subject SUV's and non-commercial pickup truck sales to the same MPG restrictions that apply to passenger cars, by 2009 model year.  The national situation regarding wasteful SUV's, and gas-hog pickup trucks that are used as toys is a disgrace.

2.  Declare a moratorium of building new natural-gas-fired electric generating plants.  They are a temendous waste of the most precious fossil fuel of all.

3.  Enact reasonable LOCAL LAWS to enable more wind turbines to be built.  Today many turbine projects fail because of the "NIMBY Effect".

4.  Maximize use of inland hydroelectric power.  I live in Indiana and my town operates its own hydro plant.  The electricity is cheap!

5.  I won't enter the "to nuke or not to nuke" issue, because we have enough coal reserves in the USA to last for hundreds and hundreds of years.  By then maybe we will have much safer nuke technologies or other alternative fuels.

Hybrid cars are also quite cool.  Once the production volume gets up to speed, they will be more economically attractive too.  Today on an economic basis they are marginal at best,  but that will change soon.

Max, the US has grown its appetite for oil under both Democratic and Republican administrations.  In fact, the largest growth of gas-hungry SUV's happened during the eight years of the Clinton Administration.

But this post is not meant as an anti-Clinton rant.  Quite frankly I think that the American appetite for gas-hungry vehicles is a national disgrace.  I drive a very comfortable, and very fuel efficient Saturn that gets 42MPG on the highway and 25mpg around town on a bad day.  I also have a Ford Taurus that gets 30MPG on the highway and 25MPG city again on a bad day.  It is plenty roomy... as roomy as any car that my family had when I was growing up with 2 brothers.  There is no need for the MASSIVE SUV's and the generally USELESS pickup trucks that litter our highway and waste precious natural resources.  We did not need these in the 50's and 60's, and the average family of the 00's is smaller.

Some people say "let market forces deal with this", but I disagree.  SUV's should be subjected to the same fuel-efficiency rules as passenger cars.  So then manufacturers can either start developing fuel-efficient SUV's (and pickups, etc) or stop making them at all.

Both the Repubs AND Dems have screwed the pooch on this subject...


I agree that both parties are responsible for "screwing the pooch."  However, the Bush Administration is the most environmentally ruthless administration in modern times.  Both Bush and Cheney were "elected" to the executive branch directly from the petroleum industry.  That is where their deepest interests lie, and that is disasterous for America and the world!

Don Carlos,

Kudos to your son in law.  Biodeisel is a cool way to conserve energy and cut waste.  Not a "total solution" but no ONE source of energy will solve the problem anyway.

Here is the LyricBoy Energy Policy:

1.  Subject SUV's and non-commercial pickup truck sales to the same MPG restrictions that apply to passenger cars, by 2009 model year.  The national situation regarding wasteful SUV's, and gas-hog pickup trucks that are used as toys is a disgrace.

2.  Declare a moratorium of building new natural-gas-fired electric generating plants.  They are a temendous waste of the most precious fossil fuel of all.

3.  Enact reasonable LOCAL LAWS to enable more wind turbines to be built.  Today many turbine projects fail because of the "NIMBY Effect".

4.  Maximize use of inland hydroelectric power.  I live in Indiana and my town operates its own hydro plant.  The electricity is cheap!

5.  I won't enter the "to nuke or not to nuke" issue, because we have enough coal reserves in the USA to last for hundreds and hundreds of years.  By then maybe we will have much safer nuke technologies or other alternative fuels.

Hybrid cars are also quite cool.  Once the production volume gets up to speed, they will be more economically attractive too.  Today on an economic basis they are marginal at best,  but that will change soon.



I agree with this for the most part-especially the SUV bit. We have a Honda Civic and I'm not too sure of the MPG it gets (Maybe Carlos can answer that).

However, I'm not too sure if I agree with you on the coal. Coal is very much like oil-it is dirty and there is a limited source. Also, like oil, you have to destroy the land to get to it-some places, they take entire mountain tops off just to get to it.

Nukes are not safe-plain and simple.

We really should be creating new fuels like the one that Carlos' posted about from cow manure or maybe from garbage. It would be great if we could get rid of our waste by using it for fuel. That would solve the landfill problem.



Cat

I agree that both parties are responsible for "screwing the pooch."  However, the Bush Administration is the most environmentally ruthless administration in modern times.  Both Bush and Cheney were "elected" to the executive branch directly from the petroleum industry.  That is where their deepest interests lie, and that is disasterous for America and the world!


That's odd.  I thought that Bush was Governor of Texas before he was President.

And contrary to popular belief, Halliburton is not an oil company.  It neither owns nor operates oil wells or refineries.  It DOES offer various services to the oil industry though.

That's odd.  I thought that Bush was Governor of Texas before he was President.

And contrary to popular belief, Halliburton is not an oil company.  It neither owns nor operates oil wells or refineries.  It DOES offer various services to the oil industry though.


We all know that Bush was gov of Texas, the most polluted and (probably) most corrupt state in the union, evan under Lil' Georgie's watch. 

We all know that Halliburton is a service company (with lots of insider, crony capitalist connections).  Many of us also know that Lil' Georgie was deeply involved in the oil industry, and is one of the very gew who acctually made $$$ drilling dry holes.  Think I'll form a corp. and use my 10 inch drill to look for oil in VT.  Mybe I can cash in on that bit of chicanary too.  NOT!!!!

Say it with me:

Nuclear

Say it with me:

Nuclear




What? It's not Nukalar?




Cat

Say it with me:

Nuclear


Say it with me:

Three Mile Island

CHERNOBYL

Any questions?

Not all nuclear is bad.  Pebble Bed reactors haven't got the ability to pull a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.  They're smaller and generate far, far less waste.

There's also some major improvements in fusion that have been made in the past couple years.

It's like screaming Hindenburg everytime someone mentions Hydrogen.  Unfortunately the blimp burned not because it was filled with hydrogren, but had a cloth covering that was essentially rocketfuel.

Not all nuclear is bad.  Pebble Bed reactors haven't got the ability to pull a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.  They're smaller and generate far, far less waste.

There's also some major improvements in fusion that have been made in the past couple years.

It's like screaming Hindenburg everytime someone mentions Hydrogen.  Unfortunately the blimp burned not because it was filled with hydrogren, but had a cloth covering that was essentially rocketfuel.


I defer to your superior knowledge of technology - not my strong suit.  Let me suggest a book to you that you may find interesting.  Its called Paradise for Sale by Carl L. McDaniel and John M. Gowdy.  I found their discussions of sustainability re both agriculture and energy quite interesting, but would like to hear your reaction as much more of a techy than me.

I defer to your superior knowledge of technology - not my strong suit.  Let me suggest a book to you that you may find interesting.  Its called Paradise for Sale by Carl L. McDaniel and John M. Gowdy.  I found their discussions of sustainability re both agriculture and energy quite interesting, but would like to hear your reaction as much more of a techy than me.

Until they are able to make cold fusion practical, or turn spent fission materials from hot to un-hot, nuclear will be far more trouble than it's worth.

Until they are able to make cold fusion practical, or turn spent fission materials from hot to un-hot, nuclear will be far more trouble than it's worth.


That certainly is my impression, but I'm not a physistist nor up on improvements in nuk tech.  My gut reaction is "this stuff s#@ks" but I'm willing to learn.

I did a quick google search on "pebble bed reactors" and found this page from Wikipedia which explains the concept quite well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

This type of reactor apparently cannot suffer a meltdown similar to Chernobyl because as it gets hotter the reaction slows down.  It doesn't have the control rods to slow the system down (implicated in the Chernobyl disaster) and therefore generates little nuclear waste. 

I'll look up the latest on the fusion stuff as well.  Last year or so there has been one or two developments in this line.  Not cold fusion but maintaining fusion in a magnetic field.

I'll look up the latest on the fusion stuff as well.  Last year or so there has been one or two developments in this line.  Not cold fusion but maintaining fusion in a magnetic field.


I can't find the article I was thinking about.  Anyway googling "joint european torus" gives links to the system currently being developed in the UK.  This system is still not usefully producing electricity yet and it looks like it will be many years yet.

most pages I found on cold fusion are about the controversy a few years ago where two scientists erroneously announced they'd achieved cold fusion before the work had been peer reviewed or tested by others.

I can't find the article I was thinking about.  Anyway googling "joint european torus" gives links to the system currently being developed in the UK.  This system is still not usefully producing electricity yet and it looks like it will be many years yet.

most pages I found on cold fusion are about the controversy a few years ago where two scientists erroneously announced they'd achieved cold fusion before the work had been peer reviewed or tested by others.

That would be Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman.

http://www.nndb.com/people/449/000044317/

"Here's another alternate source of energy - cowtricity, and the by-product can be used as gertilizer without creating phosphorous run-off.  Could be very lucrative in several states."- POWADUNGA, Dudes! ;D


I agree that both parties are responsible for "screwing the pooch." 

This phrase obviously has a different meaning in the UK, unless referring to David Blunkett (and I don't mean his guard dog!)  ;D :D