Gas at $3.25,will affect attendance

Ensign Smith said:
Technology continues to advance in both areas, and it is safe to predict that within the next 50 years, these problems will be resolved and renewable energy will win the competition with burning dinosaurs.

Nah, I think it will be much, much sooner. The funny thing is that it takes rich nerds or philanthropists to drive the innovation on their own dime (like the guy building the Tesla roadster). Most big companies aren't interested in disrupting their existing business until their business is, well, disrupted. The airline industry comes to mind, because they need air travel to cost less or they're all going to be screwed.

It's not that I don't see benefits, Walt, it's that I see the "benefits" as a series of exceptions, as I've outlined before. Are you saying that driving an SUV when 95%+ of the time a more fuel efficient car would be adequate is responsible? That the environmental and economic impact is worth it? That's what I'm challenging you on.

You come back to "black and white," "right or wrong" and "scientific law." Is that what you require to make a different decision? Isn't knowing the impact enough?

And I don't think anyone who really spends any time looking at the issues thinks that ethanol is a cure for anything. Especially when there are millions of people starving, I'd say that burning food is hardly an ethical solution.

topthrilldragster4lyf said:
No, Jeeps don't have to be used for offroading. If its used for something that it gives as an advantage over a smaller car, such as being able to seat or haul more, that's good.

A pickup isn't necessarily to tow things, it kinda has a thing in the back called a "bed" where you can "put stuff." If that's not used to carry too much too often, then yeah, there's no need there. Do what was suggested above and rent a Home Depot truck for $20 an hour.

Anyway...

thanks so much for pointing out the obvious there bud...I must be in grade school. /sarcasm

Jeff, while burning food, or food waste for Ethanol might be unethical to you, its unethical in the first place to throw away that half of a sandwich you don't eat, or that baked potato from Outback you never finished, why don't we crate all that up and send it overseas? And find me one person that claims to have never thrown a single crumb of food away. Again, I'm playing devils advocate.

At least its a start. Oil vs. starving people? Which has more potential to cause the next ice age as some people claim? Dont get me wrong...starving people deserve the first priority, unfortunately, we don't live in Pleasantville...so our focus is oil. Ethanol may not be the perfect option, but at least it is an option, and a realistic one at that. Hydrogen and water powered vehicles are so much farther away.

^^ I suspect it will probably be much sooner as well. Some of the work going on with quantum dots seems especially promising. If they can get the manufacturing process down, the technology could offer up to 60 - 80 percent efficiency, compared to, what, 5 percent with current voltaics. That kind of efficiency would beat coal and oil, hands down.

The thing about innovation is that it often comes only as the result of crisis, which is why so many technologies spring from wars. When peak oil production occurs, some time in the next 3 to 5 years (and there is some speculation we are at peak already), the proverbial excrement is going to hit the fan and I think we'll start to see some really rapid motherf***ing innovation then.

Only hope it won't be too late to avoid a Mad Max type post-apocalyptic world. I don't want to eat dog food. ;)

Edit: carrot correction.
*** Edited 5/7/2007 3:08:47 AM UTC by Ensign Smith***

^^ Hey, you're the one who was suggesting that those are the reasons one would want one of those vehicles. I responded. Jeeze...

Smile, I hear its fun... :)

I think the hydrogen fuel cell research that Toyota, BMW and Volkswagen have done will bring affordable hydrogen powered cars to the market in the not to distant future.

Toyota has a very limited production car out now, but it is very expensive because of the technology involved. But, the car drives well and Toyota even has an experimental home refueling station, where you can make your own hydrogen using solar power.

Even more promissing for the long term is VW's work on high temperature fuel cells. Their technology promises to bring hydrogen powered cars to market at price points similar to gasoline engine cars. Although the VW cars are not ready today like Toyota's car is, the high temperature fuel cells eliminate numerous disadvantages of the low temperature cells. The cells will enable compact, cheaper and more efficient fuel cell systems for car. More info here.

Ethanol is hardly a solution to the problems with oil. The price per volume is high with current supply and demand. It's even worse when you look at price per energy of combustion. Even if the production of ethanol is expanded to it's limits, it cannot keep it's current price because of the drivie of economics. Also the entropy of ethanol isn't good either. It takes a large amount of energy to produce it. The process of refining crude oil into it's derivatives such as gasoline has much better entropy.

I support a dollar per gallon millage on gasoline. This way the demand for it will be forced to drop and will give the green light to already existing technology to fix the problem. With a steady $3 + gasoline price, other options become economical in mass production. A signal needs to be made to auto manufactures that the derived demand for crude oil based fuel is coming to an end.

mk522 said:
Jeff, while burning food, or food waste for Ethanol might be unethical to you, its unethical in the first place to throw away that half of a sandwich you don't eat, or that baked potato from Outback you never finished, why don't we crate all that up and send it overseas? And find me one person that claims to have never thrown a single crumb of food away.

Do you honestly think that's a valid comparison? There's a difference between tossing your leftovers and growing completely new food for the express purpose of burning it.

The problem with hydrogen is that it's cost prohibitive, and energy prohibitive, to make. That's very unfortunate. There is some research that indicates it could be made relatively inexpensively as a byproduct of nuclear power plants, in the heat exchanging process. The problem there is that nuclear power innovation has been stagnant for thirty years due to irrational fears, and our silly regulation that prohibits recycling the fuel (which would result in almost no nuclear waste at all).

Yes, it is valid, Jeff. Sugarcane and corn are not the only two food sources in the entire world, they are easily grown, and are plentiful in supply. We destroy acres and acres of farmland everyday for the sole purpose of, oh yeah, building our condos.

In addition to the point about buying a car and thinking beyond ourselves and thinking about the effect on everyone else..while car companies are moving in the direction of environmental friendly vehicles, someone who wants to buy a car thats 100 percent friendly to the environment doesn't have much choice, let alone having to spend the extra money...so the slow moving oil companies and the slow moving car companies don't help matters much.

Here's a sad example of politicians ignorance, I thought this was interesting: http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/apr/22warming.htm
*** Edited 5/7/2007 2:14:05 PM UTC by mk522***

Jeff - Sorry but I have to take exception to the ratifying Kyoto comment. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for conservation and such but Kyoto is just plain bad for this country.

Why? For several reasons.

First, it's controlled by the UN. That should be enough said. But the UN is a joke. It's corrupt (Oil for Food scam) and I'm still waiting for them to do something purposeful in making this world a better place. Have they done anything to help resolve the Arab/Israel conflict? And that's been going on for centuries. Heck the UN doesn't even have the stones to enforce their own resolutions. How many times did Sadam kick good ole Hans and his merry men out of Iraq or deny them access to certain areas? Please show me one thing that the UN has ever done well.

Second, if Kyoto is so good for the world then why do India and China get a free pass regarding emissions? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Or was that done so they would ratify it and not make the UN look like fools? (aka pork barrel legislation) Heck even Clinton and Megawatt/Ozone/Inconvenient Al didn't sign it.

Third, why would we put the control our energy policy in the hands of the rest of the world? Last time I checked we still were a sovereign country. I don't think that would bode well for us. And if you think $3.00 a gallon is bad, I can only see it getting worse under world control. Look at how organizations like the WTO and World Bank look at us. Not what I would call fair and impartial.

And fourth, I'd sure like to know where the fines we would have to pay for excess emmissions would go? I sure as heck wouldn't trust the UN with them. Just look at what happened to the Oil for Food program after Goofy (spelling intentional) Annan and his brat got a hold of it.

mk522 said:
In addition to the point about buying a car and thinking beyond ourselves and thinking about the effect on everyone else..while car companies are moving in the direction of environmental friendly vehicles, someone who wants to buy a car thats 100 percent friendly to the environment doesn't have much choice, let alone having to spend the extra money...

I never suggested you had to do something 100% positive, I said there are choices today that are better than others in terms of environmental and economic impact. There is no magic bullet, but you can minimize your contribution. Don't be a lazy thinker.

And if food was in plentiful supply, no one would be starving, and we'd have enough to make ethanol.

The fact is that the US drops more carbon in the air per capita than any other large developed country. I don't care if the treaty is UN-centric. We all have to play in the same sandbox.

In the words of Eric Cartman..."It's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap!"

In addition to your carbon comment, Jeff, there was a show on Discovery about how China is even worse than we are, and unfortunately, they're not doing much about it, unlike here in the U.S. ( I know we're not doing a whole lot, but its better than nothing)

Ironically, volcanos put out a huge amount of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide into the air. I'd Like to see the UN regulate that. :)

China puts out more pollution than America, but they have a much higher population too. China's population drives down their per capita pollution. I personally don't care too much about CO2. On the other hand, SO2, CFCs and NOx can become big problems with Acid rain, serious ozone depletion and Smog.

The US has cleaned up pollutions such as particulate, CFCs, CO, SO2, and NOx for decades and continues to get more strict on their outputs. China still burns coal dirty releasing 100% the SO2, CO, and particulate pollution.

Honestly, you don't have to be a tree hugger to not want the harmful effects of certain types of pollution. Smog looks and smells nasty and literally eats your life expectancy. Acid rain ruins practically anything it falls on. CFC's eat the ozone which protects against gamma rays. If you think getting sunburned is bad, imagine what it would be like for example if you burned in minutes instead of hours.

^Los Angeles being a prime example of that.

Of dozens of times I've traveled to Chicago, I've seen Gary IN without a smog covering just once. I drive past Gary with the windows up and vents off.

Forget LA, Detroit and Cleveland are among the worst too. But Cleveland mostly because it's downwind of Detroit. ;)

LOL.

I'm all for effeciency and 'sustainability', it makes all the sense to me. But it always makes me laugh when i tell the tree hugger that we should fire all the nuclear plants full blast. And we shoudl start to build more. Cheap energy (which is what our whole society has been built on for the last thirty years), reduce the power of the 800 pound gorilla (oil that is), and it buys us time for those end of the world chicken littles out there. But no... they say we could never use nuclear. What a joke. Come on, if people were really serious about this global warming-worlds coming to an end we should ba all over any effort that reduces carbon emissions until a better system comes along.

Oh and give up the complaining about the gas prices, they aren't nearly as bad as those in Europe and we've been spoiled with rediculously low gasoline prices for a long time. $3.00 is about the top average of gas over the last ninty years or so (in 2006 dollars) so it really isn't as bad as we all want to think. And even if you don't want to believe inflation analysis then think of it this way, why haven't people dramatically reduced or changed the way they use gasoline? Because while we would rather not spend 3.00 bones on a gallon of gas it still doesn't impact most people significantly.
*** Edited 5/9/2007 3:35:19 AM UTC by gener***

That tide is turning. Even the head of Greenpeace will tell you that nukes are the way to go. What has to come with that is serious revision about how fuel is disposed of, i.e., it needs to be recycled. The French do it until there is almost no waste, yet we bury it after one use and cross our fingers no one will mess with it for tens of thousands of years. All because someone in the 70's was worried recycling could lead to the creation of weapons-grade materials. Idiots.

I hate agreeing with you on something.