With great fanfare, President O'Bama visited Holland, Michigan to celebrate the opening of the LG battery factory; a factory built to supply batteries for the Chevy Volt. The plant was built with federal tax dollars to support a vehicle funded by federal tax dollars made by a company owned by the government. "This is a symbol of where Michigan is going, this is a symbol of where
Holland is going, and this is a symbol of where America's going,"
President Barack Obama told a crowd at the groundbreaking.
What was the result? THE FACTORY HAS YET TO SHIP A SINGLE BATTERY! Workers have so little to do, they spend hours playing board games, cards, reading magazines or watching movies. All this on your tax dollars. Here is the WOOD-TV Article on the subject. http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle
Where is President O'Bama now? Where is his praise for "green jobs"? Or should I tell you that studies have shown that for every green job created, 3 are lost from the high cost of electricity.
What kind of "job" is this when it creates nothing of value? Is this what the insane left enviro-whackos call "sustainable"? I have a secret for you people: if it doesn't create something of competitive value, it is not sustainable.
What is the O'Bama Administration's response to this massive waste? "We are sending this to the Inspector General, Department of Energy, for
his review," said Ed Pound, spokesman for the board. The Inspector
General's Office would decide whether to open an investigation. Pound
refused further comment.
A review? Any fool could have told you that this was a waste before they broke ground. Why should there be "further comment" when the real goal was to BUY VOTES in an election year. Detroit and points east of US 127 can be taken for granted to vote O'Bama's way. But with economic devastation, a few thousand votes in solidly Republican West Michigan can turn the tide of the election toward O'Bama and the Democrats.
Folks! The government is spending a king's fortune just to make you feel good about yourself. It's "green". It's "new technology". It's "jobs". That's what they tell you, but none of this is sustainable because it isn't competitive and creates nothing of real value. For every Volt sold, 10,000 Chinese (and 7,500 Indians) bought their first conventionally fueled vehicle. That's because THEY are making things of competitive value while your government encourages us to make worthless batteries for worthless cars that cost too much and won't accommodate Michael Moore's fat-infested torso.
The big corporations don't have a problem because they didn't have to bear the risk. The people who built the plant have taken their money and run; the executives of those contracting firms now contemplate early retirement. LG has their O'bama bucks. They'll close the factory when there's a loss to write off to offset the immense profits they make on their own products.
And you? HA HA HA! You get to struggle to buy frozen peas at your local grocer because the O'Bama Administration is forcing electricity prices through the roof. You get to buy gasoline at $4 a gallon because the O'Bama Administration won't let us use our natural gas surplus to make methanol. It (methanol) can be blended with gasoline in any ratio with cheap ($100/car) off-the-shelf technology. Coal miners out of work. Petrochemical lobby happy. Electric cars in the junk yard. Saudi Arabia laughing all the way to the bank.
Thank you Mr. President! Thanks for hiring hundreds of workers who are now reading magazines, playing cards and watching videos. That's what you called "Hope and Change" 4 years ago, but we all knew what it really was: patronage worker creation - Chicago Style.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Monday, October 22, 2012
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Trouble With Wind
Many of you will remember the original Star Trek episode, “The Trouble With Tribbles.” The Enterprise is transporting grain to a planet with the unlikely name of Sherman's Planet, which is in dispute between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. But Kirk et al discover their ship has been invaded by thousands of cute, furry, purring little critters called tribbles. They do no harm, except they eat voraciously and reproduce prodigiously. They're so cute that no one has the heart to do them any harm, but pretty soon, they've eaten all the grain and threaten to take over the ship. (Without going into plot details, Kirk and crew escape this predicament when Scotty, ever the resourceful engineer, beams the tribbles from the Enterprise onto a Klingon ship.)
Wind turbines are a little like tribbles. They're appealing, they can displace kilowatt-hours from carbon generators, and they seem to do no harm; but they consume prodigious amounts of money, and they're reproducing all over the countryside. Everybody seems to think they're wonderful, but are they going to contribute anything to our energy requirements? And, if they do, what are the downsides, if any?
Read more here...
Wind turbines are a little like tribbles. They're appealing, they can displace kilowatt-hours from carbon generators, and they seem to do no harm; but they consume prodigious amounts of money, and they're reproducing all over the countryside. Everybody seems to think they're wonderful, but are they going to contribute anything to our energy requirements? And, if they do, what are the downsides, if any?
Read more here...
I fully agree with George C. Loehr's basic thesis. In fact, I think he's too kind to the wind turbine proponents. I encourage you read it and take Mr. Loehr's warning to heart.
I'm a big fan of alternative energy, but wind turbines are NOT the way to go.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Would a "President McCain" have been any better?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPE!
Just in case you don't believe me, Accuracy in Media notes the following in an article dated May 17, 2011:
NOPE!
Just in case you don't believe me, Accuracy in Media notes the following in an article dated May 17, 2011:
The Arab-funded Al-Jazeera is hosting a two-day inaugural “Al Jazeera U.S. Forum” in Washington, D.C., featuring Bob Woodward of The Washington Post among the celebrity journalists. But of particular interest is Politico’s revelation that Republican Senator John McCain showed up at the opening night of the forum to praise the channel’s coverage of the Middle East.
I don't know how fair this article is. All I know is that John McCain's passionate words of support for Israel have always come with the asterisk that comes with cooperation with the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby. If he's showing up to praise Al-Jazeera, what does that say about his confrontation of Barack O'Bama's proposed U.S./Israel policy when he was running for President in 2008?
While I'm at it, let's note that Senator McCain was a loud proponent of U.S. military intervention in the Libyan Civil War. Who benefits from that war? Let me give you a hint.
Upon the start of U.S. Armed Forces intervention against Libya, Saudi Arabia "re-assured" the U.S. and our allies that they would "make up" any deficit in petroleum production caused by the Libyan "unrest". This might sound like a generous offer but think about it! With prices for petroleum skyrocketing past $100/barrel, Saudi Arabia is CASHING IN on the war against Libya. "Such a deal I have for you!"
As the Libyan war drags on and the Saudis get richer from it, Americans continue to struggle with rising gasoline prices. American politicians from both parties run to make kissy-face with the Saudis and their Persian Gulf OPEC conspirators. Just to make sure you don't notice, the President offers a "bold new policy" dealing with the War Against Israel.
See how it works?
*UPDATE*
My friend Debbie Schlussel has informed me that Accuracy in Media is anything but. I've known Debbie for a long time and I trust her judgment on this. Debbie's views aside, the nature of the headlines on their website are too loaded to be automatically accepted as objective. That is why I made sure to qualify my column with "I don't know how fair this article is."
If someone can confirm that Sen. McCain and Nancy Pelosi attended the Al-Jazeera U.S. Forum and offered praise for that news organization, please let me know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but for now, I have to question the accuracy of the claim and seek additional confirmation that Sen. McCain's participation actually occurred as it was described by Accuracy in Media.
*UPDATE*
In retrospect, I have to be fair so let me extend my comments a little to clarify one point that came up yesterday during a lunchtime conversation with some Friends of Israel. While it seems likely that Sen. McCain's diplomacy would have been very similar to President O'Bama's had the former been elected, I believe there would be one significant difference. That difference becomes clear when you go down to the column below to read my entry regarding the President O'Bama's scapegoating of Israel.
President Bush pressured Israel for political and territorial concessions. That much was made clear by his Sec. of State Condeleeza Rice. However, when President Bush spoke of Israel, he always presented the Jewish State in the most positive terms. President Bush routinely acknowledged Israel's past territorial concessions and the risks it had taken for peace. Moreover, President Bush was willing to acknowledge that these risks often failed to bring about the expected results. President Bush routinely rallied American public support for Israel.
In observing Sen. McCain, I can say that I've personally witnessed him doing the same thing. Had John McCain been elected President, the policies probably would have been much the same. The difference would be that the President's "bully pulpit" would rally public support behind Israel and avoid scapegoating Jews for his diplomatic failures throughout the Muslim world.
I won't elaborate on how this differs from President O'Bama's public presentation of the War Against Israel. I've already done that in a column below. I just thought I'd take a moment to put my comments in perspective regarding Sen. McCain.
*UPDATE*
My friend Debbie Schlussel has informed me that Accuracy in Media is anything but. I've known Debbie for a long time and I trust her judgment on this. Debbie's views aside, the nature of the headlines on their website are too loaded to be automatically accepted as objective. That is why I made sure to qualify my column with "I don't know how fair this article is."
If someone can confirm that Sen. McCain and Nancy Pelosi attended the Al-Jazeera U.S. Forum and offered praise for that news organization, please let me know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but for now, I have to question the accuracy of the claim and seek additional confirmation that Sen. McCain's participation actually occurred as it was described by Accuracy in Media.
*UPDATE*
In retrospect, I have to be fair so let me extend my comments a little to clarify one point that came up yesterday during a lunchtime conversation with some Friends of Israel. While it seems likely that Sen. McCain's diplomacy would have been very similar to President O'Bama's had the former been elected, I believe there would be one significant difference. That difference becomes clear when you go down to the column below to read my entry regarding the President O'Bama's scapegoating of Israel.
President Bush pressured Israel for political and territorial concessions. That much was made clear by his Sec. of State Condeleeza Rice. However, when President Bush spoke of Israel, he always presented the Jewish State in the most positive terms. President Bush routinely acknowledged Israel's past territorial concessions and the risks it had taken for peace. Moreover, President Bush was willing to acknowledge that these risks often failed to bring about the expected results. President Bush routinely rallied American public support for Israel.
In observing Sen. McCain, I can say that I've personally witnessed him doing the same thing. Had John McCain been elected President, the policies probably would have been much the same. The difference would be that the President's "bully pulpit" would rally public support behind Israel and avoid scapegoating Jews for his diplomatic failures throughout the Muslim world.
I won't elaborate on how this differs from President O'Bama's public presentation of the War Against Israel. I've already done that in a column below. I just thought I'd take a moment to put my comments in perspective regarding Sen. McCain.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Japan Quake/Tsunami; Iran Nukes
If you're like me, you've probably been following the rescue effort being mounted in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan recently. I encourage you to donate money to the rescue effort. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee has established a Japan/Pacific Disaster Relief fund. I encourage you to make a donation immediately.
I pray to Gd in heaven, the Japanese people are not further harmed by the damage done to their nuclear power plants. So far, so good! The containment buildings haven't been breached. Though several Japanese nuclear plant workers have made heroic sacrifices for the public good, the likelihood of a Chernobyl scenario still looks remote in the short term. Cleaning up the mess might take years and cost a lot of money, but so far the public appears safe. While it can't be comfortable living in evacuation, at least those living near the effected reactors enjoy the supreme gift of life and will ultimately recover.
Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of my column. Moreover, I have very mixed feelings about leveraging a current event tragedy like this to make a political statement on an unrelated matter. Japan needs our help, but something else needs to be said.
You see, in the wake of the Japan quake and tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion among all nations about the safety of their civilian nuclear power plants. Some nations that were considering building new plants are thinking twice. Americans are wondering if "it could happen here" and what we're doing to make certain our commercial nuclear power plants can withstand natural disasters. Suddenly, everybody seems concerned about nuclear safety EXCEPT IRAN and that's the point of this post.
For years Iran has given mixed signals about their nuclear "program". Frankly, I think the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program and they do little to disguise it. Nonetheless, there are many people in denial about this.
Now we have virtually all industrialized nations worried about the safety of their nuclear power plants. For some strange reason, no such public discussion seems to emanate from Iran. If Iran's nuclear research program were really for "peaceful purposes', I would think they'd be talking about increasing safety and foregoing the construction of new plants. Don't hold your breath, folks!
Iran's nuclear program is for making weapons to attack America. If you don't believe me, you'll know soon enough. When all the industrialized nations of the world re-examine their civilian nuclear power production facilities, I fully expect Iran to forge ahead in their nuclear research as if nothing at all has happened in Japan. When that happens, there will be no longer any doubt as to the purpose of Iran's nuclear research program. If my prediction is correct, all question as to the intent of Iran's nuclear research program should be evident for all to see.
So keep those Japan/Pacific donations coming in folks! Just remember! This won't slow down the Iranian nuclear weapons program. For Iran, the nuclear jihad must go on.
Sincerely,
There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)
I pray to Gd in heaven, the Japanese people are not further harmed by the damage done to their nuclear power plants. So far, so good! The containment buildings haven't been breached. Though several Japanese nuclear plant workers have made heroic sacrifices for the public good, the likelihood of a Chernobyl scenario still looks remote in the short term. Cleaning up the mess might take years and cost a lot of money, but so far the public appears safe. While it can't be comfortable living in evacuation, at least those living near the effected reactors enjoy the supreme gift of life and will ultimately recover.
Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of my column. Moreover, I have very mixed feelings about leveraging a current event tragedy like this to make a political statement on an unrelated matter. Japan needs our help, but something else needs to be said.
You see, in the wake of the Japan quake and tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion among all nations about the safety of their civilian nuclear power plants. Some nations that were considering building new plants are thinking twice. Americans are wondering if "it could happen here" and what we're doing to make certain our commercial nuclear power plants can withstand natural disasters. Suddenly, everybody seems concerned about nuclear safety EXCEPT IRAN and that's the point of this post.
For years Iran has given mixed signals about their nuclear "program". Frankly, I think the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program and they do little to disguise it. Nonetheless, there are many people in denial about this.
Now we have virtually all industrialized nations worried about the safety of their nuclear power plants. For some strange reason, no such public discussion seems to emanate from Iran. If Iran's nuclear research program were really for "peaceful purposes', I would think they'd be talking about increasing safety and foregoing the construction of new plants. Don't hold your breath, folks!
Iran's nuclear program is for making weapons to attack America. If you don't believe me, you'll know soon enough. When all the industrialized nations of the world re-examine their civilian nuclear power production facilities, I fully expect Iran to forge ahead in their nuclear research as if nothing at all has happened in Japan. When that happens, there will be no longer any doubt as to the purpose of Iran's nuclear research program. If my prediction is correct, all question as to the intent of Iran's nuclear research program should be evident for all to see.
So keep those Japan/Pacific donations coming in folks! Just remember! This won't slow down the Iranian nuclear weapons program. For Iran, the nuclear jihad must go on.
Sincerely,
There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Taxation without representation
Today is election day; a day that reminds us that our republic was founded on the slogan of: "Taxation without representation is tyranny". Indeed, no matter how you view Republicans, Democrats and their respective philosophies on taxation and spending, we get to vote them in and out of office every so often.
This year, we have the phenomenon of the "Tea Party"; a party of conservative "pure constitutionalists" who can probably speak for themselves better than I can with regard to what they stand for. For the most part, with no exceptions that I am aware of, the "Tea Party" candidates are all Republicans theoretically from the more conservative wing of the party.
Therein lies the problem with the "Tea Party" for in the end, these are the same Republicans who voted in George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the White House without protest. It puzzles me. After all, the "Tea Party" appears to be named after the "Boston Tea Party" which was for all practical purposes, a militia attack against an English ship carrying Tea which bore a tax that the colonists objected to. "Taxation without representation is tyranny", that's what the Boston Tea Party was about, but today, things are much different.
Today, the prime example of taxation without representation is the illegal and tyrannical manipulation of world petroleum prices by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel. The amount of wealth being siphoned off the industrialized countries is staggering. The OPEC cartel serves as the greatest threat to America's freedom and independence since the World War II. The horrific impact that this oppressive tax has on developing countries is devastating literally in terms of malnutrition and disease that these countries cannot control due to their petroleum bill. Yet for all the cruel tyranny the OPEC cartel inflicts upon us all, nowhere during the political debate have I seen this "Tea Party" address OPEC's oppressive taxation without representation. Given the fact that all the "Tea Party" candidates are Republican, it leaves me to wonder whether they're any different than the same old politicians we already have.
It might feel good to vote Tea Party candidates in office today and I don't discourage you from doing so if that is your wish. I'll merely point out to you that two years from now, you're likely to be thinking "We've been here and done that before. Why did we think it would be different this time?"
This year, we have the phenomenon of the "Tea Party"; a party of conservative "pure constitutionalists" who can probably speak for themselves better than I can with regard to what they stand for. For the most part, with no exceptions that I am aware of, the "Tea Party" candidates are all Republicans theoretically from the more conservative wing of the party.
Therein lies the problem with the "Tea Party" for in the end, these are the same Republicans who voted in George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the White House without protest. It puzzles me. After all, the "Tea Party" appears to be named after the "Boston Tea Party" which was for all practical purposes, a militia attack against an English ship carrying Tea which bore a tax that the colonists objected to. "Taxation without representation is tyranny", that's what the Boston Tea Party was about, but today, things are much different.
Today, the prime example of taxation without representation is the illegal and tyrannical manipulation of world petroleum prices by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel. The amount of wealth being siphoned off the industrialized countries is staggering. The OPEC cartel serves as the greatest threat to America's freedom and independence since the World War II. The horrific impact that this oppressive tax has on developing countries is devastating literally in terms of malnutrition and disease that these countries cannot control due to their petroleum bill. Yet for all the cruel tyranny the OPEC cartel inflicts upon us all, nowhere during the political debate have I seen this "Tea Party" address OPEC's oppressive taxation without representation. Given the fact that all the "Tea Party" candidates are Republican, it leaves me to wonder whether they're any different than the same old politicians we already have.
It might feel good to vote Tea Party candidates in office today and I don't discourage you from doing so if that is your wish. I'll merely point out to you that two years from now, you're likely to be thinking "We've been here and done that before. Why did we think it would be different this time?"
Sunday, August 22, 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque
For all that is being said, I don't support the Cordoba House. I think Muslims have a right to build it. They have a right to build it right there at Ground Zero where they can insult the United States. The problem is this: they could NOT build it there or anywhere if they didn't have MONEY gained from the illegal manipulation of petroleum prices by Saudi Arabia and OPEC.
The strategic path to victory in the war against Islamic terrorism is the elimination of petroleum as the prime mover of our transportation system. As long as that doesn't change, Muslims will continue to receive enormous amounts of cash to do with as they wish. They'll buy our politicians; newspaper editors, college professors, judges, supreme court justices, bureaucrats, city councils, zoning boards, corporate executives etc. They'll build skyscrapers wherever they want. At the going rate, they'll have enough money to buy majority shares in the Fortune 500 in a few years.
The Cordoba House plan is merely a symptom of the disease. At best it can be delayed. As long as the wealth of the Western World continues to flow into the hands of Saudi Wahabbists, Muslims will buy whatever money will buy.
There are solutions to this problem in our hands today. They are discussed elsewhere in this blog. Unfortunately, those who are in the pocket of Saudi Arabia have mounted a furious public relations effort to oppose these solutions.
The strategic path to victory in the war against Islamic terrorism is the elimination of petroleum as the prime mover of our transportation system. As long as that doesn't change, Muslims will continue to receive enormous amounts of cash to do with as they wish. They'll buy our politicians; newspaper editors, college professors, judges, supreme court justices, bureaucrats, city councils, zoning boards, corporate executives etc. They'll build skyscrapers wherever they want. At the going rate, they'll have enough money to buy majority shares in the Fortune 500 in a few years.
The Cordoba House plan is merely a symptom of the disease. At best it can be delayed. As long as the wealth of the Western World continues to flow into the hands of Saudi Wahabbists, Muslims will buy whatever money will buy.
There are solutions to this problem in our hands today. They are discussed elsewhere in this blog. Unfortunately, those who are in the pocket of Saudi Arabia have mounted a furious public relations effort to oppose these solutions.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Israel Strikes "Mother Lode" of Natural Gas
If there's one thing anti-Semites hate, it's empowered Jews. That is why they hate Israel so much. If there's one thing they hate more than Israel, it's an Israel empowered with overwhelming financial wealth.
Well folks! It looks like worldwide anti-Semitism is about to experience their worst nightmare because Israel has discovered it's second pool of natural gas in two years. This one is the "mother lode" and will likely turn Israel into a natural gas exporting country.
Leviathan gas find spurts optimism (Jerusalem Post)
Therefore, Israel is now energy independent and soon will be poised to be a net energy exporter. I have long pointed out that over the years that Israel, with 1/4 the population of Saudi Arabia has a GDP of approximately half of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Israel achieved this economic strength with no petrochemical wealth. Now, combined with petrochemical wealth (Reports say there may be petroleum underneath the Leviathan gas field.) Israel's economy could become the the single largest in the region.
Well folks! It looks like worldwide anti-Semitism is about to experience their worst nightmare because Israel has discovered it's second pool of natural gas in two years. This one is the "mother lode" and will likely turn Israel into a natural gas exporting country.
Leviathan gas find spurts optimism (Jerusalem Post)
“The Leviathan exploration has the potential of being twice the size of Tamar, which was the largest gas discovery globally in 2009,” Richard Gussow, a research analyst at Deutsche Bank, said Thursday.
In addition, Noble Energy confirmed Thursday that the Tamar project remains on schedule for sanction in 2010 and first gas production sales in 2012. Noble Energy on Wednesday increased its expectations for gross recoverable gas resources at Tamar by 33% to 8.4 trillion cubic feet as a result of updated reservoir studies.
“This year we have undertaken significant capital projects to help maintain a high Mari-B deliverability through 2012, and we are working hard to enable Tamar first gas sales late in that same year,” Davidson said.
Noble Energy’s discoveries could provide about 35 years of Israel’s natural-gas needs at projected 2012 demand rates. The capital investment for Tamar is estimated at $2.8 billion.
“With the Tamar project expected to supply Israel with its natural-gas needs for the next three decades, a discovery at Leviathan, should there be one, would be earmarked for export,” Gussow said.
Therefore, Israel is now energy independent and soon will be poised to be a net energy exporter. I have long pointed out that over the years that Israel, with 1/4 the population of Saudi Arabia has a GDP of approximately half of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Israel achieved this economic strength with no petrochemical wealth. Now, combined with petrochemical wealth (Reports say there may be petroleum underneath the Leviathan gas field.) Israel's economy could become the the single largest in the region.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
About the Breakup of Al and Tipper Gore
I voted for Al Gore. I voted for Clinton twice. Unfortunately, I was never liberal ENOUGH because I don't hate Israel.
In his day, Al Gore was a heck of a good public servant. When he lost the 2000 election, he lost his marbles. He went insane. I knew it because I loved him.
Perhaps it was best that he lost that election. In September 2001, when he showed up to President Bush's address to the joint session of Congress, he was bearded and had obviously gained a lot of weight.
George Bush delivered his address, basking in the glory of support from a nation rallying around our President. Al Gore was irrelevant and he knew it. It ate at him. It tore at his self-identity.
In the following years, Al Gore sought relevancy in the American policy-making field by pushing his "global warming" fear. It led to an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize. It was not enough! It was not enough to sooth his loss of sanity. Indeed, his loss of sanity had led to the herculean effort to bring the irrational fear of "global warming" to the forefront of national and international policy making.
Having won all the accolades and adoring attention of throngs of followers, it is only natural that all this made his insanity worse. I saw the signs; others did not. But now, ten years later, we are finally seeing the signs that the bulletproof "Gorebot" is a man of flesh and blood; susceptible to all the things that fame, fortune and international attention provide. Who knows! Perhaps we'll find that he's another "Tiger Woods". Or maybe it's just that his insanity became too much for Tipper to bear. Eventually, we'll find out the details.
In the mean time, I'm not gloating over this. I just think it's important to say that I saw Al Gore crumble badly after the election of 2000. I'm not entirely surprised this happened, but I wish it hadn't.
In his day, Al Gore was a heck of a good public servant. When he lost the 2000 election, he lost his marbles. He went insane. I knew it because I loved him.
Perhaps it was best that he lost that election. In September 2001, when he showed up to President Bush's address to the joint session of Congress, he was bearded and had obviously gained a lot of weight.
George Bush delivered his address, basking in the glory of support from a nation rallying around our President. Al Gore was irrelevant and he knew it. It ate at him. It tore at his self-identity.
In the following years, Al Gore sought relevancy in the American policy-making field by pushing his "global warming" fear. It led to an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize. It was not enough! It was not enough to sooth his loss of sanity. Indeed, his loss of sanity had led to the herculean effort to bring the irrational fear of "global warming" to the forefront of national and international policy making.
Having won all the accolades and adoring attention of throngs of followers, it is only natural that all this made his insanity worse. I saw the signs; others did not. But now, ten years later, we are finally seeing the signs that the bulletproof "Gorebot" is a man of flesh and blood; susceptible to all the things that fame, fortune and international attention provide. Who knows! Perhaps we'll find that he's another "Tiger Woods". Or maybe it's just that his insanity became too much for Tipper to bear. Eventually, we'll find out the details.
In the mean time, I'm not gloating over this. I just think it's important to say that I saw Al Gore crumble badly after the election of 2000. I'm not entirely surprised this happened, but I wish it hadn't.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Silver Bullet to our Petroleum Crisis
I was reading a column by David Harris of the AJC the other day. While I praise the AJC for making energy a high priority, I find them too embracing of liberal orthodoxy. Like so many people, they've been distracted by all the talk of "greenhouse gases". So when David Harris made the comment: "There is no silver bullet", I had to disagree. There IS a "silver bullet". It is the Open Fuels Standard Act of 2009.
Dr. Robert Zubrin has laid this policy out in a book called "Energy Victory". I highly recommend you read it. However, if you can't read it, please take the time to watch these 4 videos of his Energy Victory presentation.
These videos can be found at the following address:
http://vimeo.com/tag:zubrin
Here's part 1 of 4
Dr. Robert Zubrin Energy Victory 1 of 4 from EcoBabble on Vimeo.
Dr. Robert Zubrin has laid this policy out in a book called "Energy Victory". I highly recommend you read it. However, if you can't read it, please take the time to watch these 4 videos of his Energy Victory presentation.
These videos can be found at the following address:
http://vimeo.com/tag:zubrin
Here's part 1 of 4
Dr. Robert Zubrin Energy Victory 1 of 4 from EcoBabble on Vimeo.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Have you ever noticed?
Have you ever noticed that individuals and factions generally partial to greater state control of economic life, have found the evidence for global warming to be quite compelling?
Just thought I'd ask again since a cap-and-trade bill is winding its way through Congress right now.
Just thought I'd ask again since a cap-and-trade bill is winding its way through Congress right now.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
About Global Warming
Let's get something straight!
The problem isn't global warming. The problem is people who say government can fix problems of global magnitude by taking more of your money and controlling the way you live.
The problem isn't global warming. The problem is people who say government can fix problems of global magnitude by taking more of your money and controlling the way you live.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Grain isn't a limited resource
Grain isn't a limited resource. We can grow tons more. Right now, the government pays farmers NOT to plant crops. But wait! There's more!
Most corn grown in America is feed grain for cattle. In the ethanol distilling process, only the starch is used. All the protein fiber and oil is left over for use as cattle feed.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit ethanol production to corn. There are other sources of ethanol including sugar cane (Brazil is running their cars on sugar-cane based ethanol) and other sugar-bearing crops. Plus, there's cellulosic ethanol, the next coming technology.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit our automotive fuels to ethanol. We can run our cars on METHANOL which can be made from darn near anything including coal, waste wood, waste paper, and even garbage.
Diesel powered vehicles can be run from dimethyl ether, another alcohol derivative.
In the third world where economies are agrarian in nature, growing plants for automotive fuel holds the potential for economic growth that these countries so desperately need. Why let the poor countries get raped by OPEC when we can have THEM make our automotive fuels.
Yet if you read my post, you'll note that we don't have to do anything to MAKE ethanol. We merely have to make our vehicles CAPABLE of running on alcohol fuels. By doing that, we can place a cap on the price of petroleum that will limit OPEC's ability to control prices.
We can't lose if we have motor vehicles capable of running on biofuels. The possibilities are endless. We can even derive bio-fuels from algae fed from CO2 emissions from power plants that we are currently throwing away. Even the tree-huggers will like that one!
Most corn grown in America is feed grain for cattle. In the ethanol distilling process, only the starch is used. All the protein fiber and oil is left over for use as cattle feed.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit ethanol production to corn. There are other sources of ethanol including sugar cane (Brazil is running their cars on sugar-cane based ethanol) and other sugar-bearing crops. Plus, there's cellulosic ethanol, the next coming technology.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit our automotive fuels to ethanol. We can run our cars on METHANOL which can be made from darn near anything including coal, waste wood, waste paper, and even garbage.
Diesel powered vehicles can be run from dimethyl ether, another alcohol derivative.
In the third world where economies are agrarian in nature, growing plants for automotive fuel holds the potential for economic growth that these countries so desperately need. Why let the poor countries get raped by OPEC when we can have THEM make our automotive fuels.
Yet if you read my post, you'll note that we don't have to do anything to MAKE ethanol. We merely have to make our vehicles CAPABLE of running on alcohol fuels. By doing that, we can place a cap on the price of petroleum that will limit OPEC's ability to control prices.
We can't lose if we have motor vehicles capable of running on biofuels. The possibilities are endless. We can even derive bio-fuels from algae fed from CO2 emissions from power plants that we are currently throwing away. Even the tree-huggers will like that one!
Flex Fuel Vehicle Mandate is a MUST
With petroleum and gasoline prices falling, there is still plenty of room for ethanol in America's future for transportation fuels. Naturally, ethanol is losing its competitive edge as the price of petroleum falls with the world economy slipping into a major recession.
But all is not lost. You see, NOW is the time to bring about a federal mandate for flex fuel vehicles.
We don't need to make any more ethanol (especially corn-based ethanol) than we are not to finally put a cap on the price of petroleum. A mandate that all cars sold in America be flex fueled (Any mix of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol) would forever place a ceiling on how much OPEC can charge for petroleum.
Right now, the equivalent price of a gallon of gasoline in the form of ethanol is about $2.25/gallon. That was VERY competitive with last Summer's gasoline prices that exceeded $4.00/gallon. However today, this is not competitive with gasoline selling for well under $2.00/gallon.
However, if every car sold in America could run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol, the prices of these alternative fuels made-in-America will forever be a cap on the price of gasoline and petroleum.
That is why it is imperative that the United States pass a flex fuel vehicle mandate as soon as possible.
But all is not lost. You see, NOW is the time to bring about a federal mandate for flex fuel vehicles.
We don't need to make any more ethanol (especially corn-based ethanol) than we are not to finally put a cap on the price of petroleum. A mandate that all cars sold in America be flex fueled (Any mix of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol) would forever place a ceiling on how much OPEC can charge for petroleum.
Right now, the equivalent price of a gallon of gasoline in the form of ethanol is about $2.25/gallon. That was VERY competitive with last Summer's gasoline prices that exceeded $4.00/gallon. However today, this is not competitive with gasoline selling for well under $2.00/gallon.
However, if every car sold in America could run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol, the prices of these alternative fuels made-in-America will forever be a cap on the price of gasoline and petroleum.
That is why it is imperative that the United States pass a flex fuel vehicle mandate as soon as possible.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Algea Power
Algae holds a lot of potential as a biofuel. As petroleum prices tumble making ethanol less competitive for the present, algae holds a double potential because it can be used to reduce carbon emissions from conventional power plants. While I'm not a fan of the proponents of global warming, there is no good reason to throw away perfectly good CO2 when it can be used to make transportation fuels.
Isaac Berzin has a prototype system in place at MIT's power plant. He's not alone.
http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Profiles&enDisplay=view&enPage=BlankPage&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles^l2141
Here's anothe researcher:
Algae hold the potential to far out-produce corn as a source of biofuel.
Isaac Berzin has a prototype system in place at MIT's power plant. He's not alone.
http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Profiles&enDisplay=view&enPage=BlankPage&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles^l2141
Here's anothe researcher:
Algae hold the potential to far out-produce corn as a source of biofuel.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Have you ever noticed?
Have you ever noticed that individuals and factions generally partial to greater state control of economic life, have found the evidence for global warming to be quite compelling?
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Another busy week for America and Ethanol
For starters, it was really nice to see Texas Gov. Rick Perry suffer defeat by the EPA recently. Gov. Perry, claiming to represent poultry farmers in Texas (as if the as if petroleum companies aren't encouraging him) led a charge to roll back ethanol production mandates. I have written before about the myth that ethanol is blamed for tight food supplies.
Now, FAITH BREMNER of http://www.tennessean.com/ writes a fine article in the link below:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080816/NEWS08/808160338/1025/NEWS01
WASHINGTON — Ethanol producers will use about a quarter of the U.S. corn crop this year, an amount that alarms ranchers and poultry producers who depend on corn to feed their animals. As the demand for corn and energy costs climb, so do prices at the grocery store.
But the ethanol industry's impact on the nation's supply of corn for feed isn't as dramatic as it may seem.
One-third of all the corn used to make ethanol ends up as an ingredient in feed that farmers in the upper Midwest — where most of the ethanol plants are located — give their cattle, poultry and pigs.
This year, farmers will feed 18 million metric tons of this ethanol byproduct, called distillers grains, to their animals, up from 2.3 million tons nine years ago. Last year they used 14.6 million tons. About 1 million tons will be exported to places such as Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and Japan.
The article goes on to say that distillers grains aren't easy to come by where there are no distilleries, so Texas chicken farmers are probably experiencing difficulty. Given that Texas is enjoying the fruits of soaring petroleum prices, I think the state can manage for a while. Funny how Gov. Rich Perry doesn't complain to the EPA about soaring petroleum prices. And let's face it! The EPA's mission on earth is not to regulate the price of chicken feed (or the price of tea in China for that matter).
Maybe Texas needs some distilleries producing distillers grain. Maybe Texas petroleum companies need to share some of their record profits subsidizing the state's embattled poultry farmers. I think Texas can solve this problem quite handily without any help from the EPA, the Federal Government, and the rest of the country. All they have to do is get with the program.
In other wonderful news...
Going to Google News and entering "Ethanol" for a search yields fresh news every day about new plants coming on line. Ethanol plants go up FAST. It takes 2 years from start to finish to put an ethanol plant on line.
There are a lot of new cellulosic ethanol plants coming on line too. Each one has rather unique technology; some which may turn out to be more efficient than others. The soaring price of petroleum is fueling a surging technological race to replace it with alcohol fuels.
FYI, the EPA mandate for corn ethanol has already been met (or will be so by the time you read this). The race is on for more cellulosic ethanol production which is the other half of the EPA ethanol mandate. Ooops! Gov. Perry didn't mention that when he whined about the price of chicken feed.
I'll tell you a little secret: Texas has some of the best darn energy engineers found on the planet. They can probably put up distilleries faster than the rest of us. All Texas has to do to fix their little chicken farmers' problem is get with the program.
In yet additional good news...
Yahoo AP reports:
Oil touches 3-month low on stronger US dollar
NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil fell to its lowest price in three months Friday, briefly touching the $111 level after the dollar muscled higher and OPEC predicted the world's thirst for fuel next year will fall to its lowest point since 2002.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080815/oil_prices.html?.v=21
Gee! Maybe some of these spot market speculators are figuring out that we have a very nice future with automotive fuels that will compete quite nicely with petroleum sold at ridiculous speculative prices. Maybe OPEC is starting to realize that the party is over. I wouldn't go dancing in the streets just yet. Alcohol fuels start losing their competitive edge at around $50/barrel; still a VERY healthy price for petroleum.
Nobody is going to starve because we put alcohol fuels in our cars. In fact, we'll all have more jobs making fuels here in the United States that bring a good buck to American workers.
Eventually, our idiot politicians are going to get bowled over by economics performing a work of nature that cannot be stopped. It would be nice if they act smart and pass the Open Fuels Standard Act of 2008 and make every car sold in America capable of running on any blend of gasoline or alcohol. Then we'll have even more domestic alcohol plants, more jobs, the price of petroleum will be forced down, the dollar will regain its glory and we'll all live happily ever after.
Have a nice day,
There is NO Santa Claus
Now, FAITH BREMNER of http://www.tennessean.com/ writes a fine article in the link below:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080816/NEWS08/808160338/1025/NEWS01
WASHINGTON — Ethanol producers will use about a quarter of the U.S. corn crop this year, an amount that alarms ranchers and poultry producers who depend on corn to feed their animals. As the demand for corn and energy costs climb, so do prices at the grocery store.
But the ethanol industry's impact on the nation's supply of corn for feed isn't as dramatic as it may seem.
One-third of all the corn used to make ethanol ends up as an ingredient in feed that farmers in the upper Midwest — where most of the ethanol plants are located — give their cattle, poultry and pigs.
This year, farmers will feed 18 million metric tons of this ethanol byproduct, called distillers grains, to their animals, up from 2.3 million tons nine years ago. Last year they used 14.6 million tons. About 1 million tons will be exported to places such as Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and Japan.
The article goes on to say that distillers grains aren't easy to come by where there are no distilleries, so Texas chicken farmers are probably experiencing difficulty. Given that Texas is enjoying the fruits of soaring petroleum prices, I think the state can manage for a while. Funny how Gov. Rich Perry doesn't complain to the EPA about soaring petroleum prices. And let's face it! The EPA's mission on earth is not to regulate the price of chicken feed (or the price of tea in China for that matter).
Maybe Texas needs some distilleries producing distillers grain. Maybe Texas petroleum companies need to share some of their record profits subsidizing the state's embattled poultry farmers. I think Texas can solve this problem quite handily without any help from the EPA, the Federal Government, and the rest of the country. All they have to do is get with the program.
In other wonderful news...
Going to Google News and entering "Ethanol" for a search yields fresh news every day about new plants coming on line. Ethanol plants go up FAST. It takes 2 years from start to finish to put an ethanol plant on line.
There are a lot of new cellulosic ethanol plants coming on line too. Each one has rather unique technology; some which may turn out to be more efficient than others. The soaring price of petroleum is fueling a surging technological race to replace it with alcohol fuels.
FYI, the EPA mandate for corn ethanol has already been met (or will be so by the time you read this). The race is on for more cellulosic ethanol production which is the other half of the EPA ethanol mandate. Ooops! Gov. Perry didn't mention that when he whined about the price of chicken feed.
I'll tell you a little secret: Texas has some of the best darn energy engineers found on the planet. They can probably put up distilleries faster than the rest of us. All Texas has to do to fix their little chicken farmers' problem is get with the program.
In yet additional good news...
Yahoo AP reports:
Oil touches 3-month low on stronger US dollar
NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil fell to its lowest price in three months Friday, briefly touching the $111 level after the dollar muscled higher and OPEC predicted the world's thirst for fuel next year will fall to its lowest point since 2002.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080815/oil_prices.html?.v=21
Gee! Maybe some of these spot market speculators are figuring out that we have a very nice future with automotive fuels that will compete quite nicely with petroleum sold at ridiculous speculative prices. Maybe OPEC is starting to realize that the party is over. I wouldn't go dancing in the streets just yet. Alcohol fuels start losing their competitive edge at around $50/barrel; still a VERY healthy price for petroleum.
Nobody is going to starve because we put alcohol fuels in our cars. In fact, we'll all have more jobs making fuels here in the United States that bring a good buck to American workers.
Eventually, our idiot politicians are going to get bowled over by economics performing a work of nature that cannot be stopped. It would be nice if they act smart and pass the Open Fuels Standard Act of 2008 and make every car sold in America capable of running on any blend of gasoline or alcohol. Then we'll have even more domestic alcohol plants, more jobs, the price of petroleum will be forced down, the dollar will regain its glory and we'll all live happily ever after.
Have a nice day,
There is NO Santa Claus
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Lithium-ion Batteries for Automotive Propulsion
I promised someone on the MLIVE.com Newstalk forum that I'd blog this. It's kind of a long story and there was no sense in doing all the typing and letting it slip into the archives never to be seen again.
So there I was at the AIPAC policy conference last June (2008) and we're at the break-out session on energy independence and what Israel is doing in that field. As I mentioned in my last entry, I hit it off immediately with Dr. Robert Zubrin who was sitting to my left on the panel of four presenters. Unfortunately, I can't remember for the life of me who the others were.
So anyway, for those of you who don't know, the State of Israel is embarking on a bold new adventure with electric cars. Because Israel is so tiny, commute distances aren't that great and electric cars are viable there.
Here's a brief article on the project:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=124445
The Israeli car will be developed by a joint-venture between Renault and Nissan. The cool thing about this car is that it will have a drop-out battery. Rather than requiring recharge, there will be special stations that are much like those 20-minute oil change places. You pull over the hole. The old battery is dropped out and a new one is plugged in. The whole process takes just a few minutes; probably no longer than it takes to pump gasoline in the car you own now.
So here's the rub. The guy presenting the Renault-Nissan prototype was sitting on the far left. He mentioned that this car would have a 110 mile radius on one battery charge. This immediately perked my ears for one basic reason: right now the "talk of the town" in electric cars surrounds the Tesla Roadster being developed in England. I'd also digress to point out that there is at least one person in Tesla's management from my Alma mater (University of Illinois College of Engineering) and also one from Israel.
Here's the link for the Tesla roadster:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
If you go over to the Performance tab on the web site, you'll notice that the Tesla Roadster has a radius of 220 miles on a single battery charge. This is TWICE that being quoted for the Renault-Nissan prototype.
So back to the AIPAC conference. It was now the question-and-answer period and I got up to the microphone. I introduced myself and asked the guy on the left a simple question: "The Renault-Nissan prototype gets 110 miles to a battery charge. Tesla motors is getting 220 miles to a battery charge. What is Tesla doing different?"
So the presenter on the far left stumbles and says: "Well... if you want a car that goes from 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, that's a whole 'nother thing. We're not trying to accomplish that here."
I felt like he was ducking my question so I pressed him and answered: "But WHAT IS TESLA DOING DIFFERENT THAT THEY GET 220 MILES ON A SINGLE BATTERY CHARGE?"
He responds: "We feel that the Tesla Roadster uses unproven technology. They use Lithium-ion batteries and we use conventional Nickle-Metal-Hydride batteries."
I thanked him for answering my question and let it go because I knew he was looking for an "out" and this was the best he could do. And besides, I kinda understood what he was saying, even if I didn't agree with him.
Just to tell you how lame this response was, a mere two weeks later, the wire services (AP, Reuters etc.) all ran stories about how Toyota can't keep up with demand for their hybrid cars. The bottleneck is that they can't make enough batteries quick enough. That was the bad news. The good news is that help is on the way. Toyota and Matsushita Electric (aka Panasonic) were building a joint-venture factory to make even MORE batteries for their hybrid cars and better yet! The new batteries were going to be Lithium-ion packs which were smaller, lighter and held more charge.
SO... apparently the world leader in hybrid cars thinks that there's nothing "unproven" about Lithium-ion battery packs for automotive propulsion. I think perhaps the Renault-Nissan folks need to strongly consider this improvement for their upcoming Israeli vehicle.
In all fairness to the presenter at AIPAC, the Tesla Roadster is hardly a family car. It's a two-seater built for performance. Moreover, it's battery pack is not designed to be conveniently swapped out like the Renault-Nissan prototype. This is a key feature of the Israeli car and essential to it's commercial viability. Designing a Lithium-ion battery pack that is also easy to swap out is a significant technical issue; one not to be taken lightly. Nonetheless, the notion that Lithium-ion batteries are "unproven technology" for automotive propulsion is definitely not shared by Toyota Motors. Frankly, I think the subject of Lithium-ion battery packs needs to be re-visited by those working on the Israeli project. Even if the first cars have the older Nickel-Metal-Hydride batteries, I'd like to think there would be little trouble upgrading once a newer Lithium-ion battery pack is developed.
So there I was at the AIPAC policy conference last June (2008) and we're at the break-out session on energy independence and what Israel is doing in that field. As I mentioned in my last entry, I hit it off immediately with Dr. Robert Zubrin who was sitting to my left on the panel of four presenters. Unfortunately, I can't remember for the life of me who the others were.
So anyway, for those of you who don't know, the State of Israel is embarking on a bold new adventure with electric cars. Because Israel is so tiny, commute distances aren't that great and electric cars are viable there.
Here's a brief article on the project:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=124445
The Israeli car will be developed by a joint-venture between Renault and Nissan. The cool thing about this car is that it will have a drop-out battery. Rather than requiring recharge, there will be special stations that are much like those 20-minute oil change places. You pull over the hole. The old battery is dropped out and a new one is plugged in. The whole process takes just a few minutes; probably no longer than it takes to pump gasoline in the car you own now.
So here's the rub. The guy presenting the Renault-Nissan prototype was sitting on the far left. He mentioned that this car would have a 110 mile radius on one battery charge. This immediately perked my ears for one basic reason: right now the "talk of the town" in electric cars surrounds the Tesla Roadster being developed in England. I'd also digress to point out that there is at least one person in Tesla's management from my Alma mater (University of Illinois College of Engineering) and also one from Israel.
Here's the link for the Tesla roadster:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
If you go over to the Performance tab on the web site, you'll notice that the Tesla Roadster has a radius of 220 miles on a single battery charge. This is TWICE that being quoted for the Renault-Nissan prototype.
So back to the AIPAC conference. It was now the question-and-answer period and I got up to the microphone. I introduced myself and asked the guy on the left a simple question: "The Renault-Nissan prototype gets 110 miles to a battery charge. Tesla motors is getting 220 miles to a battery charge. What is Tesla doing different?"
So the presenter on the far left stumbles and says: "Well... if you want a car that goes from 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, that's a whole 'nother thing. We're not trying to accomplish that here."
I felt like he was ducking my question so I pressed him and answered: "But WHAT IS TESLA DOING DIFFERENT THAT THEY GET 220 MILES ON A SINGLE BATTERY CHARGE?"
He responds: "We feel that the Tesla Roadster uses unproven technology. They use Lithium-ion batteries and we use conventional Nickle-Metal-Hydride batteries."
I thanked him for answering my question and let it go because I knew he was looking for an "out" and this was the best he could do. And besides, I kinda understood what he was saying, even if I didn't agree with him.
Just to tell you how lame this response was, a mere two weeks later, the wire services (AP, Reuters etc.) all ran stories about how Toyota can't keep up with demand for their hybrid cars. The bottleneck is that they can't make enough batteries quick enough. That was the bad news. The good news is that help is on the way. Toyota and Matsushita Electric (aka Panasonic) were building a joint-venture factory to make even MORE batteries for their hybrid cars and better yet! The new batteries were going to be Lithium-ion packs which were smaller, lighter and held more charge.
SO... apparently the world leader in hybrid cars thinks that there's nothing "unproven" about Lithium-ion battery packs for automotive propulsion. I think perhaps the Renault-Nissan folks need to strongly consider this improvement for their upcoming Israeli vehicle.
In all fairness to the presenter at AIPAC, the Tesla Roadster is hardly a family car. It's a two-seater built for performance. Moreover, it's battery pack is not designed to be conveniently swapped out like the Renault-Nissan prototype. This is a key feature of the Israeli car and essential to it's commercial viability. Designing a Lithium-ion battery pack that is also easy to swap out is a significant technical issue; one not to be taken lightly. Nonetheless, the notion that Lithium-ion batteries are "unproven technology" for automotive propulsion is definitely not shared by Toyota Motors. Frankly, I think the subject of Lithium-ion battery packs needs to be re-visited by those working on the Israeli project. Even if the first cars have the older Nickel-Metal-Hydride batteries, I'd like to think there would be little trouble upgrading once a newer Lithium-ion battery pack is developed.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Strategic Path To Victory In The War On Terror
Remember folks! You heard it here first.
THE STRATEGIC PATH TO VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE ELIMINATION OF PETROLEUM AS THE PRIME MOVER OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
There! Read that. Remember where you read it and quote your source often.
I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Robert Zubrin recently at the 2008 AIPAC policy conference. We hit it off right on the spot. I merely told him what I wrote above in bold letters. Dr. Zubrin commented that he ALMOST agreed. He repeated what I said and added one word. In Dr. Zubrin's opinion: "The strategic path to victory in the war on terror is the elimination of petroleum as the ONLY prime mover of our transportation system."
I'll let you decide whether that's "splitting hairs". I like his attitude. Besides! He's done a TON more research into this than I have. I've been merely following ethanol vehicle fuels because I grew up in Illinois farm country. I've long been convinced that America could produce enough ethanol to power our motor vehicle fleet; the largest in the world. Dr. Zubrin has written a book that all but proves it out.
The book is ENERGY VICTORY and it is presented at:
http://www.energyvictory.net/
Of particular importance, PLEASE review the on-line slide show highlighting his thesis.
http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_Presentation.htm
In short, Dr. Zubrin's thesis is that we could create competition in the motor vehicle fuel business by mandating that all cars sold in the US be flex fuel.
I concur with Dr. Zubrin. Giving American automobile fuel consumers CHOICE will cause competition that will break OPEC's absolute control over motor vehicle fuel supply. Make OPEC nations work for a living, competing against the rest of the world which can grow something that can be made into ethanol. This competition will cause a significant shrinkage in the capacity of the money pipeline to international terrorism.
We're not limited to corn. We're not even limited to ethanol as methanol is even cheaper to make. Methanol is still used in American open wheel auto racing.
I don't care how you add it up! Petroleum selling over $100/barrel makes ethanol competitive. Whether you use corn, sugar cane, coal, wood, or something we're currently throwing away, you can make alcahol fuels out of it.
There is even great potential for biodiesel. CO2 from power plants can be pumped into ponds growing oil-rich species of algea. The oil can be extracted and used for diesel fuel. There is a paper from the University of New Hampshire on the web that is somewhat dated, but interesting reading.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Now I know a lot of you are hearing all this talk about how ethanol is robbing the food supply. This is ridiculous, but apparently not obvious to all.
Let me assure you, there is compelling evidence to lead any rational person to know that ethanol is not robbing the food supply. Rather, it is increasing the food supply. Grocery prices have risen because trucking prices have risen due to high petroleum prices and more specifically, diesel fuel prices.
Nonetheless, this is explained by Dr. Zubrin and any number of other people as well as the USDA.
Dr. Zubrin writes:
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry—actually, because of it—the amount of corn grown in the United States has vastly increased. The U.S. corn crop grew by 45 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled, and the net U.S. corn production of food for humans and feed for animals increased 34 percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent over last year. America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
So much for the food dis-information campaign. There is also another insidious myth floating around about ethanol. This myth says that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the energy contained in the fuel. Even if this were the case, ethanol would still be a viable motor vehicle fuel for several reasons. It's not just a matter of whether we gain or lose energy. It's a matter of whether we can put it in our gas tanks and run our cars. The real fact is that modern farming and distilling methods have clearly made ethanol a net energy gain
This is best articulated by the American Coalition for Ethanol:
What does "net energy balance" mean?
What is ethanol's energy balance? Net energy balance is a term used to describe how much energy is needed to produce a product versus how much energy that product provides. Two professors that are long-time critics of ethanol claim that ethanol has a negative energy balance, but this is simply not true and has been debunked again and again by science. Scientific study after study has proven ethanol's energy balance to be positive. The latest USDA figures show that ethanol made from the drymill process provides at least 77% more energy as a fuel than the process it takes to make it. The bottom line is that it takes about 35,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy to create a gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs of energy. The net energy balance of ethanol is simply a non-issue.
http://ethanol.org/index.php?id=81&parentid=25#MISCONCEPTIONS
The raw price of ethanol is currently less than petroleum. It's just a matter of automakers adding an average of $100 to the cost of a vehicle to make it flex fuel. The economics will take care of themselves. In a few years, we would have millions of flex fuel vehicles on the road and fueling stations would have to carry ethanol/methanol/E85 because their raw cost is way lower than the present market price for petroleum products.
This is such a no-brainer! Brazil has already done it! We need not feel like we're driving in the dark without our lights on. Besides, if Brazil can do it, certainly the United States of America, land of the free - home of the brave, can do it.
The American motor vehicle consumer deserves CHOICE in motor vehicle fuels. The small scale of ethanol production in the U.S. over the past 3 years has proven itself. Depending on market conditions, ethanol may or may not be competitive. With flex-fuel vehicles that will not be a problem. We will always be able to choose the cheapest fuel.
Thus, whether or not ethanol completely replaces gasoline or not, the fuel supply for America's motor vehicle fleet can be secured with ethanol and other alcahol fuels. Once OPEC no longer controls the cost of our transportation, the money pipeline to terrorism shrinks significantly.
*UPDATE* (10/28/12)
I have added the web site Open Fuel Standard to the "My Blog List". The blog is "... the central action hub for all things concerning the vitally important legislation, The Open Fuel Standard Act.
I encourage my readers to follow this blog. - TINSC
THE STRATEGIC PATH TO VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE ELIMINATION OF PETROLEUM AS THE PRIME MOVER OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
There! Read that. Remember where you read it and quote your source often.
I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Robert Zubrin recently at the 2008 AIPAC policy conference. We hit it off right on the spot. I merely told him what I wrote above in bold letters. Dr. Zubrin commented that he ALMOST agreed. He repeated what I said and added one word. In Dr. Zubrin's opinion: "The strategic path to victory in the war on terror is the elimination of petroleum as the ONLY prime mover of our transportation system."
I'll let you decide whether that's "splitting hairs". I like his attitude. Besides! He's done a TON more research into this than I have. I've been merely following ethanol vehicle fuels because I grew up in Illinois farm country. I've long been convinced that America could produce enough ethanol to power our motor vehicle fleet; the largest in the world. Dr. Zubrin has written a book that all but proves it out.
The book is ENERGY VICTORY and it is presented at:
http://www.energyvictory.net/
Of particular importance, PLEASE review the on-line slide show highlighting his thesis.
http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_Presentation.htm
In short, Dr. Zubrin's thesis is that we could create competition in the motor vehicle fuel business by mandating that all cars sold in the US be flex fuel.
I concur with Dr. Zubrin. Giving American automobile fuel consumers CHOICE will cause competition that will break OPEC's absolute control over motor vehicle fuel supply. Make OPEC nations work for a living, competing against the rest of the world which can grow something that can be made into ethanol. This competition will cause a significant shrinkage in the capacity of the money pipeline to international terrorism.
We're not limited to corn. We're not even limited to ethanol as methanol is even cheaper to make. Methanol is still used in American open wheel auto racing.
I don't care how you add it up! Petroleum selling over $100/barrel makes ethanol competitive. Whether you use corn, sugar cane, coal, wood, or something we're currently throwing away, you can make alcahol fuels out of it.
There is even great potential for biodiesel. CO2 from power plants can be pumped into ponds growing oil-rich species of algea. The oil can be extracted and used for diesel fuel. There is a paper from the University of New Hampshire on the web that is somewhat dated, but interesting reading.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Now I know a lot of you are hearing all this talk about how ethanol is robbing the food supply. This is ridiculous, but apparently not obvious to all.
Let me assure you, there is compelling evidence to lead any rational person to know that ethanol is not robbing the food supply. Rather, it is increasing the food supply. Grocery prices have risen because trucking prices have risen due to high petroleum prices and more specifically, diesel fuel prices.
Nonetheless, this is explained by Dr. Zubrin and any number of other people as well as the USDA.
Dr. Zubrin writes:
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry—actually, because of it—the amount of corn grown in the United States has vastly increased. The U.S. corn crop grew by 45 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled, and the net U.S. corn production of food for humans and feed for animals increased 34 percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent over last year. America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
So much for the food dis-information campaign. There is also another insidious myth floating around about ethanol. This myth says that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the energy contained in the fuel. Even if this were the case, ethanol would still be a viable motor vehicle fuel for several reasons. It's not just a matter of whether we gain or lose energy. It's a matter of whether we can put it in our gas tanks and run our cars. The real fact is that modern farming and distilling methods have clearly made ethanol a net energy gain
This is best articulated by the American Coalition for Ethanol:
What does "net energy balance" mean?
What is ethanol's energy balance? Net energy balance is a term used to describe how much energy is needed to produce a product versus how much energy that product provides. Two professors that are long-time critics of ethanol claim that ethanol has a negative energy balance, but this is simply not true and has been debunked again and again by science. Scientific study after study has proven ethanol's energy balance to be positive. The latest USDA figures show that ethanol made from the drymill process provides at least 77% more energy as a fuel than the process it takes to make it. The bottom line is that it takes about 35,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy to create a gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs of energy. The net energy balance of ethanol is simply a non-issue.
http://ethanol.org/index.php?id=81&parentid=25#MISCONCEPTIONS
The raw price of ethanol is currently less than petroleum. It's just a matter of automakers adding an average of $100 to the cost of a vehicle to make it flex fuel. The economics will take care of themselves. In a few years, we would have millions of flex fuel vehicles on the road and fueling stations would have to carry ethanol/methanol/E85 because their raw cost is way lower than the present market price for petroleum products.
This is such a no-brainer! Brazil has already done it! We need not feel like we're driving in the dark without our lights on. Besides, if Brazil can do it, certainly the United States of America, land of the free - home of the brave, can do it.
The American motor vehicle consumer deserves CHOICE in motor vehicle fuels. The small scale of ethanol production in the U.S. over the past 3 years has proven itself. Depending on market conditions, ethanol may or may not be competitive. With flex-fuel vehicles that will not be a problem. We will always be able to choose the cheapest fuel.
Thus, whether or not ethanol completely replaces gasoline or not, the fuel supply for America's motor vehicle fleet can be secured with ethanol and other alcahol fuels. Once OPEC no longer controls the cost of our transportation, the money pipeline to terrorism shrinks significantly.
*UPDATE* (10/28/12)
I have added the web site Open Fuel Standard to the "My Blog List". The blog is "... the central action hub for all things concerning the vitally important legislation, The Open Fuel Standard Act.
I encourage my readers to follow this blog. - TINSC
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Welcome
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Welcome
Welcome to There is NO Santa Claus' blog. You can call me TINSC for short. There are several reasons I have adopted this nickname, but I'm just getting the blog started. There will be plenty of time to fill you in on the details.
posted by There is NO Santa Claus at 7:52 PM 0 comments
Welcome
Welcome to There is NO Santa Claus' blog. You can call me TINSC for short. There are several reasons I have adopted this nickname, but I'm just getting the blog started. There will be plenty of time to fill you in on the details.
posted by There is NO Santa Claus at 7:52 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
