http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece Sounds like a fairly natural progression in the evolution away from crude. Just wondering if it needs refining or not. The article gives the impression it might not. Not to stir the political pot, but I wonder if PETA would make a stink over this?
Josh, I think it's all down to one's definition of "genetic engineering." Certainly the Modern Green Revolution in India resulted from genetic engineering. "You say dwarf wheat; I say vertically challenged wheat." Having said that, I'll go along with Ag on this one. Anything that allows for more compatible fuel -- or the enhancement of already proven technology like the electric car -- is far superior to pie-in-the-sky crapola like hydrogen-cell technology or costs-more and wastes-more energy choices like Ethanol.
Actually, the same public reservations will apply as in GM food.... Fear of what happens if the modified bugs get loose, while GM food opponents worry about long term effects on human immune systems. I wrote recently that a guy had demonstrated he could cultivate algae to produce oil feedstock from sunlight and CO2, these guys are doing it like a sewage plant or septic tank works, but with a different strain of bacteria that eats plant detritus. From what I know I'd rather take my chances with the algae, but there's still some worries with that. If that algae gets loose and/or modifies, there would be a potential hazard to water supplies.
Well why didn't you just say so? We'll start that non-fossil based usage after lunch. As for less gas, you'll have to forgive me for dismissing a one off quip from the guy in NYC. Some of us have an interest and need for solutions to bridge the gap. You may not, more power to ya. Would this really be any different than the potential of nuclear meltdown, or oil spills or any other possible side effect from energy extraction sources? The article conveniently omits the potential harm posed if, in fact, the bugs were able to break containment somehow. Good point, Fog. I'll see what I can find on it.
There are, definitely, no quick easy answers. Let's review the facts: The various coastline states control offshore drilling. Just to make sure, congress passed a federal moratorium on same. It's that which McCain addresses. We'll still be at the mercy of the states, Florida's position being the most egregious. - In my opinion states should have no control over anything 50 miles out. Clinton vetoed drilling in Anwar in 1995. Dems who use the 10 year timeline to bring production on line are hypocritical SOB's in thrall to their idiot super minority green SIGs. -None of the 'Alternative-energy' programs can claim less than ten year results. - I'm actually hearing the tree-huggers spouting off about 'Caribou protection' again. In case any of you idiots think that's true, do a little homework. CARIBOU LOVE PIPELINES!!! Most of the resistance is based on Carbon based global warming fears. As long as that view is accepted, we'll be in thrall of the idiots who FOR SOME REASON -$- refuse to address REAL SCIENTISTS who say it's not a significant factor in global warming. It's gratifying to see Corn Ethanol's claims debunked. It didnt address the CO2 problem anyway. Claimed that it emits only 85% of CO2 as petrol.. guess what, it's only 85% as efficient, therefor no gain! - Sorry... ALL Ethanol as answer is wrong. There are no waste agricultural products! If those wastes are used for fuel, they are diverted from other uses like fertilizer. Hydrogen is seen as the portable fuel of the future. How do I get Hydrogen without generating CO2? How do I transport it, how do I safely control it? We have plenty of coal. Coal generates CO2 which CAN be recovered and sequestered at some expense and Mercury, which is also expensive to scrub. Nuclear Power needs water and needs a safe waste storage. We built the waste storage but Harry Reid doesnt like it and is forefront of groups in a vast desert wasteland to refuse allowing it to be used. - plus there actually is very little unusable waste in long view. New technologies can use spent elements to generate power. - The French generate 80% of their power with nukes. When's the last time you saw a 'Chernobyl/Three Mile news story from there? French are competent with technology, but not exactly rocket scientists. If they can do it, we can do it. WindPower is a bust as a significant power source. Ask Teddy. Or just try to put windmills on White Mtn NH. Solar {all methods} is good bet in the southwest. The tech is becoming exponentially more cost-efficient as we read. Doesnt help Seattle, though. - Cant believe, though, that some actually promote orbital solar with the power beamed to ground stations... oh, yeah! Nothing could POSSIBLY go wrong with that!
Now.. in light of McCain saying he wants to investigate the commodities/futures effect on the price of energy, let's look at that: - MArket types say that's ridiculous.. it's futures markets which keep prices stable. That is true. But not always. There are three basic motives/aspects for dealing in futures: Lock-in. This is for energy retailers, and large users, to stabilize and predict their costs. - Could also be used by energy providers to shore up future prices. So if we see ARAMCO buying a lot of futures we could pretty well guess why. Speculate UP Takes a long position that prices will increase in the future. However the more people buy long, the higher the bids go. Thus the price doesnt REALLY reflect 'supply and demand' other than nominally affecting the the price. This can be manipulated by incorrect, false, or new info withheld - 'Insider' trading. See movie 'Trading Places' Speculate Down - Short Position This is convoluted. Understanding that the short trader expects the market price to drop, he will borrow shares and deal in 'options' which a long holder will agree to in order to limit possible losses. Thus it's the SHORT which most accurately reflects supply and demand, rather than speculation on other speculator's activities. And a somewhat accurate picture of energy speculation could be gained by looking at the percentage of transactions taking/involving Short Positions. That's only my opinions, of course, and I might be wrong because it's not my field. Gladly accept other provable views
You're right, of course, and I understand that my comment was an oversimplification. I continue to believe, though, that it will be a missed opportunity if the energy crisis gets solved as if the root question were "how can we obtain more liquid fuel to burn in our cars?" and not "how did we get stuck in this situation where we, as a society, are so dependent on having a plentiful supply of liquid fuel to burn in our cars, and how can we get out of that situation?"
Because, until relatively recently, there was no central control on energy usage and production. In fact many -on both sides of the issue- advocated we continue to import as much crude as possible in order to conserve our own. That was great while oil was 15 - 20 a bbl. Shortsighted, huh! But now that Dubya has seen the light, we have the Chief Liar of the House puking this drivel: - emphases mine Do any of you Dem apologists want to explain that statement? I have an idea what it REALLY means. It means the womans a liar, but we already know that... it also implies that she and the Dems could be bought off if the lease terms were advantageous enough. The ONLY thing I can agree with Pelosi on concerning big oil is they do not need tax breaks.. but what are those tax breaks FOR? Added: Rep Hinsche was just on Fox addressing the 68 million already under lease. He says the Oiler's arent drilling on those, and just want to corner more area. They dont NEED those off-shore lands while they are sitting on all those dryland leases Now I would like that explained, in full not just in a soundbite. Why ARENT they drilling in areas already under lease? Could it be there's OTHER rules stopping them? Environmental Impact Studies, for example? I saw Colorado was shown as containing a lot of that area. We know Colorado and its neighbors wont let them drill, even with the leases. But I'm SURE a Dem like Hinsche wouldnt lie, would he! Franek.. you are already getting what you deserve. heh! :twisted:
If that's another way of saying "no real energy policy," then yes, I agree with you, but I think it's an awfully vague analysis. More specifically, I'd say that our land use and development patterns have been planned, for too long, with the idea in mind that cars are the exclusive form of transportation worth paying attention to. The ideas of communities that are walkable or bikeable, and of modern mass transit systems, have been neglected and now we're paying for it because people need their cars to get everywhere.
I'm no more of an expert than you, but all you've said -- depressingly -- seems the logical explanation. We're told that demand is driving the price increase -- but this hasn't been true for about 6 months according to many market analysts. We're told that there's a danger in being in thrall to Middle East tyrants over oil, but MOST of our imports come from CANADA. And, finally, we're told that producing and using more of our own oil would stabilize and decrease prices, but the ONLY reason we're using their oil instead of ours, is that ours is more costly to produce. If we did rely solely on ours, prices would skyrocket. The real key, it seems to me, is to right the dollar ship. It is the weakness of the economy in this speculation bubble that's causing investors to prefer oil to dollars. Until we get the dollar back to being a valid means of international exchange, we're going to be in trouble. Of course, as 'fog says, your mileage may vary. Lather, rinse repeat.
That's really only an urban solution. The vast majority of this country though isn't urban and those suggestions simply aren't practical for both economic and logistical reasons. That doesn't address industries such as shipping and the impact it has on most every product we consume. Unfortunately, it's just not as simple as making a lifestyle change.
The greatest reason that a non-petroleum alternative feels like such a reach at this point is because there has been a cursory at best attempt to fund research to develop these technologies, therefore not providing any legitimate promise (or "hope" for Fog). The current administration has spent $4B since 2001 on researching alternative energy. How little is that? About the cost of 2 weeks of occupying Iraq. We're not even trying, and we're wasting valuable time. If the US won the race to create this technology, the US would immediately become the wealthiest and most progressive country in the world, while crippling the Middle East's meal ticket. At the very least we could cover the entire Mojave desert with solar panels today and power the majority of the US tomorrow.
For long-distance shipping, rail is WAY more energy-efficient than trucks. Regarding your point that my suggestions were really only an urban solution: A) Something like 80% of the population of this country lives in urban and suburban areas. Coming up with a solution for "only" those people addresses the problems of a LOT of people. B) If those who live in areas that are able to be addressed by those types of solutions take advantage of them and thus drive less, the demand for gas goes down and the crunch is eased on those who don't have alternatives. C) I don't buy the logic that land use planning in small towns can't take these ideas into account as well. Certainly small towns existed before the advent of the automobile and were laid out in such a way that people could get places by walking (or, I suppose, on horseback). Transit is scalable to smaller areas in the form of buses. Look, in truly rural areas you're still going to need personal transportation, obviously, but that doesn't mean small towns can't take this stuff into account.
I get your point, and from an urban standpoint agree with it to a great extent. I question that 80% number (I'll explain below), but regardless, it's just a part of a solution. I was just pointing out that it's not the only one and doesn't address a number of facets. I agree with everyone who says we need short, intermediary and long term solutions that will lead us to the most self sustainable, and preferrably environmentally friendly, solution that is economically feasible for the populace as a whole. Whatever that may be. As for planning, things change. Economic, population and real estate booms and busts have changed cities beyond planning. By their very nature, beaurocracies are inefficient. The more complicated the planning, the less efficient they become. And if change comes quickly, they simply are unable to keep up. That doesn't even account for the politics that become involved over time or outdated codes and regs that affect where you can put what. Towns and cities, for the most part, started out as well planned. But go to any town or city in the US (outside of perhaps the largest ones in the NE) and the best place to live 50 years ago, isn't today. And you can cut the years on that analogy by more than 1/2 more often than not. Downtowns are often relics from another era. So much so that 10-20 years ago, you saw a lot of communities making the push to "revitalize" their downtowns. The results were often fairly unspectacular albeit asthetically improved. If you think about it, you used to go work for a company and you retired from it. Now that's a rarity. Companies go in and out of business, they merge, they relocate and more recently, they pack up and move out of the country. Change for the company and change for the citizenry occur at vastly different paces and planning around that is very difficult and complicated. What % of the population I'm talking about is anybody's guess. I honestly don't know. But even looking at cities like Houston and Dallas and then looking at NYC or Boston you see a vast difference. Suburban areas are more like their rural counterparts than the cities they border. From my experience, it tends to correllate with the size of the surrounding area of the city. Afterall, NYC can't grow out, so it grows up. That's far easier to plan, more static with regard to change, and more compatible with the less gas aspect of the solution. Regardless, re-planning existing areas as a solution going forward will probably be slower coming than alternative fuel sources. Doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, but it's a long term strategy only. And that's if we have the capability and forsight to do it with any degree of effectiveness with today's rapidly changing conditions.
JMH, do you have any background on this? I would be interested in seeing the energy consumption vs time for both. I do know that truck is usually 2-4 times faster than rail.
Unless I'm stuck behind it on the freeway. This is a great informational discussion. I'm learning a lot here. Keep it going, guys.
Personally, I think energy research is best left to private enterprise. While the military continues to drive incredible technology innovation in partnership with the private sector, and some of that eventually gets to us, funding research projects by the Federal government doesn't pay off enough. Enabling private enterprise to create economic value and pursue 'profit motives' energy research is where are energy future will be created. There are plenty of uber-wealthy ex-tech guys in my home area that are all about 'green' technology now. Many 'green' business plans are being reviewed regularly by the boys (and ladies) on Sand Hill Road and this trend will continue to grow. There is a great deal of energy research going on in the private sector from solar chip technology optimization, to nano technology that lowers energy consumption in technology products, to 'green' fuel alternatives, to battery technology improvements, to advances in nuclear safety, to straight forward advancements in fuel economy in the old combustion engine. Frankly I am somewhat tickled that gas prices are high, this can only strengthen the ROI of some of these projects, not to mention lower consumption, change car buying behavior and transportation patterns. The biggest downside to to higher energy costs is it's impact on the costs of other goods in the short to medium term. Big bad inflation. In the long run however it will force companies to be more efficient in their energy consumption and could create a whole new economic boom in energy efficiency technologies and alternative fuels and generation options. I'm certain the same kinds of companies and ideas that are spawning in Silicon Valley are also occurring in Boston, Seattle, Austin and other technology centers as well. My two cents.
RR, your two cents is worth a relative $1.98 here... because it makes a lot of sense. I'll say it again, Manmade Global Warming is bunk, that we can reverse it by cutting back CO2 is even more ridiculous. BUT.. it cant hurt to lower CO2 emissions by developing more efficient energy and energy users. Though I'm a big car buff and a geezer, for example, I really love the later-day powertrain technology which greatly reduced pollution while increasing power at the wheels. The next step is plug-in all electric sport vehicles, which would whip current Corvettes both 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile. Wont be able to afford one but can't wait to see it. In terms of what we can do right now, I am amazed at the lag in lighting reduction in commercial buildings. Check any city and we see office towers lit up 24/7 when all that would be needed is rewiring to 'nite-light' illumination standards. Where government could help, there is to provide tax-break incentives to building owners and tenants who rewire. The thought that government can better foster solutions is based on university grants, but many of those are already in place. It's not clear to me that more money will greatly increase the academic effort. But there are cases where tax money would be appropriated to private firms in the field, and in those cases the results wouldn't be any better than in the academic realm... and may be pure boondoggle as has been seen in many pork programs. In summary; the market provides all the incentive needed to develop more efficient energy, artificial legislative effort -more taxes- are actually counterproductive and are regressive. The little guy, low income wage earner, is hurt worse than the guy who can afford to adjust his transportation choices.. like driving a Prius. Something conveniently ignored by your 'populist' legislators who prefer to divert blame.
