Anyone who wants cheaper fuel prices needs to ask his representatives
at the local, state, and federal levels, what are their plans and
policies for Energy Independence.  If they don’t have any, don’t
vote for them.  They are costing you money and in the future they
may cost you your freedom.  We need to stop paying dictators,
terrorists, and tyrants oil money.  We have all the coal, oil,
nuclear power, and liquid natural gas we need to be come
energy independent.  In addition, a healthy investment in
alternative sources will keep Energy Independent for the
foreseeable future.  If we aren’t in the business of fighting oil wars, then incentive for a war with Iran goes away.

BIOMETHANE IS THE FUEL OF THE FUTURE!!!

Biomethane is “cleaned-up” biogas that has had nitrogen, H2S and other impurities of biogas removed. Biomethane is a “renewable natural gas” that can be made from most any organic, carbon-based waste material. This is why landfills are being drilled, to capture the Biomethane.

Biomethane is the cleanest burning of all biofuels and at 600-900 btu’s/mcf, replaces expensive, non-renewable natural gas seemlessly - especially when compared with other biofuels.

I agree that we need to produce more B100 Biodiesel -but only when the oilseed crops are grown in a “sustainable” manner.  Which means we don’t displace food crops with oilseed crops.... or when greed kicks in and causes people to deforest the rainforests to plant palm trees so they can produce copious amounts of Crude Palm Oil for producing B100 Biodiesel.

Biomethane is a truly incredible and amazing biofuel!

Recovering Biomethane from organic/carbon-based wastes, as well as the “manure” from wastewater treatment plants and animal operations, via anaerobic digesters, also has the environmental benefit of cleaning the air as Biomethane is about 21-23 times more damaging to the environment as carbon dioxide emissions.

Additionally, the United State Department of Agriculture determined - through the “Billion Ton Study” - that the U.S. is “wasting” over 1 Billion tons of biomass every year, that could be converted to Biomethane through Biomass Gasification. 

Biomethane is also flexible and versatile.  Not only can Biomethane be easily transported to homes and businesses, via America’s vast natural gas pipelines, Biomethane a/k/a “renewable natural gas” can be compressed, “compressed natural gas” to fuel cars or liquefied, as in “liquefied natural gas” to also fuel cars or transported.

Finally, Biomethane, as a renewable fuel, generates incentives such as Renewable Energy Credits, that can help jumpstart the Biomethane industry, which will be much larger than the combined markets and opportunities of B100 Biodiesel and E100 Ethanol combined!

Manipulating The Oil Reserve
By Thomas I. Palley
January 26, 2007

“2006 was the year that oil prices came close to breaching $80 per barrel. This was despite the fact that there were no significant supply interruptions and oil demand actually fell in industrialized countries. That raises the question of what caused the spike.

It turns out there is good reason to believe that record oil prices may be due to our own strategic oil reserve, which the Bush administration may have been manipulating to drive up prices for the benefit of its clients. This is something Congress must investigate, and here is some preliminary evidence”

Article Continues: Here

We need a new company car but refuse to buy a new one, until GM, Toyota or Mercedes come out with a large model that seats 6 or 7, and that uses biofuel.  As a company we want to support only environmentally friendly products.

Wish that Willie Nelson sold his fuel on the East Coast.

We urge all companies, all individuals.....to support this movement!!!!

this is a complicated interview and i was unable to discover what i was looking for eventhough i know it was there!!

Comment #57661 by Ben Takin on 3/09 at 2:48 pm

The only thing you will see from this administration, is higher gas prices.

^I think your exactly right. Since the lows of 50.00 a barrel early this year. “Decider” made this remark.

“And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” - Bush 07’ State of the Union speech.

And the price has climbed since.

China and other countries are also filling reserves.

Before the November 06’ elections Bush stopped filling the SPR. Recall the price drop in gasoline?

News story link below:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/president-taps-reserv es-to-bridge-oil-crisis/2006/04/26/1145861419278.html

I think the sooner that this administration’s over and done with, and we start making our own biofuels at home, the better off we’ll be. Big Oil has called the shots for years and years, but now in the course of the Iraq war, I think more and more people are finally starting to wake up to it and realize it’s time to act and speak out, I certainly feel motivated that way, it’s time for change, more ‘business as usual’ is going to burn down two countries: Ours, and theirs. So, the smart answer is to conserve like hell, and put our efforts into really becoming energy-independent, not only of the middle east, but energy independent, period. It’s past time for other countries to pull their socks up and start working to build their own futures, I think, and likewise time for us to do the same. Globalization was a nice dream, but the reality is that we are going to end up being the next british empire, and I think everyone kind of remembers what happened to them...so, again, the smart money is on the energy independence. I found online info on alcohol stills...still haven’t found out about the permitting, though...but I read somewhere that you can make pretty much an unlimited amount of ethanol for fuel use. Even if you only get 4MPG, hell, you just have to spend more time brewing your own hootch. Life is hard…

Annie,
I cannot seem to answer you via truth dig.  I hope you will try me at txgang at localnet dot com or texasgang.net or Blackolive, 1776 N. Mccampbell, Aransas Pass, tx 78336 or 361-758-2509.

The only thing you will see from this administration, is higher gas prices.

I wish we were let work out all these technical details among ourselves.  Firstly we need be free of the cloud, these rulers.  Could we be bold enough to stomach the 9/ll cover up, start exposing how 3 buildings went down controlled by man, we could break free.  Then we could talk without interference and general balderdash.

I know one crop that can do it all...hmmm, Willie Nelson, Woody Harrelson, must I spell out H-E-M-P.
Comment #54920 by Julia James on 2/22 at 1:57 pm: Absolutely correct. Almost 30 years ago I spent a year researching alternitive energy as the research partner of a debate team. Biomass and biomethane is clean and easily obtained thru a number if sustainable ways. Compost from yards, reataurants, farms, and homes could even be used reducing land fill mass. Hemp also has many cooking and edible oil potentials (hemp seeds are delicious and DO NOT get you high...)It needs no fertilizers, can grow in the most marginal land, is pest and disease free....They made marijuana illegal for the same reason they tried prohibition, to keep the land exploitation and power trip going...Thirty years ago, they predicted some kind of massive energy crisis for this period. Reagan (image of european peasant crossing themselves and spitting)ushered in the culture of denial. We could be so much farther. We can do it and no one has to be nailed to a tree or anything(thanks Douglas Adams).... Just Add Hemp! Juno

Biofuels are totally counterproductive in terms of stemming global warming, the cause of which is widely misunderstood by the public, laypeople and climate scientists alike.

Human induced global warming and climate change is caused by increased water vapor in the atmosphere and the solar energy sequestered by the latent heat of vaporization from increased agriculture generally and agricultural irrigation specifically, not rising levels of atmospheric CO2.

Farming our fuel exacerbates this problem, it doesn’t mitigate it.  Biofuels are not a solution to global warming and mitigating climate change.

Better pot-heads than warheads…

A philosopher once said that every dollar that doesn’t go towards feeding the starving, housing the homeless, etc., is blood money.

Good point, Honkytonk.

Every time I see film footage on Olberman’s Oddball segment about some foreigners throwing food at each other, like the tomatos in Spain, I think, “That food could be sent to Africa.” Instead of stocking our supermarkets with enough food to maintain a stock on the shelf and in the back room, and then have some left over to throw away as “spoiled,” let’s send some to those who need it.

So it has come to this, then: Agriculture for automobiles.

The world’s biggest energy hogs (USA and China) are to grow food crops (corn, cassava, oil palm, etc) so that they can keep their cars running, while people are starving. Way to go, biofuel proponents!

Biomethane is the best of all biofuels for multiple reasons.

First of all, there are many more opportunities and applications for “biomethane”
generation and biomethane recovery than there are for ethanol applications or biodiesel.

Catalytic conversion, biomass gasification, thermal gasification, waste
gasification and anaerobic digesters all produce “biomethane” or “synthesis
gas” which is also referred to as “renewable natural gas.”

These technologies that produce Biomethane have a much higher Net Energy Balance
than technologies producing other biofuels, such as E100 Ethanol or B100 Biodiesel.

In the case of ethanol, on average, the Net Energy Balance is about 1.3 - 1.7.

For Biodiesel, the Net Energy Balance is about 3.2 - 3.5.

For Biomethane, I have seen reports that state the Net Energy Balance is about double that of Biodiesel. So this means a Net Energy Balance for Biomethane around 6.5 - 7.0

So, for all of the biofuels, Biomethane production is the one that makes the most
economic and environmental sense.

Next, there are far more applications for Biomethane, one half of all homes and most commercial and industrial businesses already use natural gas. And with the vast delivery system already in place - which is the natural gas pipelines, transmission and distribution pipelines, the infrastructure is already in
place and therefore, Biomethane is much easier to get to market.

Finally, Biomethane (and methane) is 21 times more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide emissions. So, when Biomethane is recovered or converted, and kept from being introduced into the environment, and is burned for producing useful power or energy, the environment is cleaner and “recycled energy” therefore, becomes sustainable.

Part of the paralysis that seems to contaminate discussions of alternative fuels is the underlying assumption that they must be “perfect solutions” - practically perpetual motion machines.

IMHO, humans are not only allowed to leave an enviro-footprint, but we are required to do so in order to fit into the ecosystem.  The problem is that we do everything in a greedy way and in an instant, not allowing nature sufficient time to recover.

We do not have to resort to biofuels as a complete, total comprehensive replacement for petroleum.  That’s a specious argument.

We need to stop pumping crap (scientific term) into the atmosphere while killing forests - we’re giving Mother Earth emphysema.

If we all modify our energy consumption and pursue some model of alternative fuel it will be enough!  It won’t be perfect, but it will be enough! 

Some can use geothermal & greasecars.  Some can use solar & ethanol.  Everyone can change lightbulbs & recycle. 

Lining up thousands of acres to grow corn is absurd.  Ditto for sugarcane.  We use the waste, the wind, the sun and stop driving to the grocery store alone 5 days per week. 

We can do it if we stop demanding perfect solutions & grow it gradually the best we can.

Keep the faith, for pete’s sake & let’s take the babysteps to get us where we want to be!

I ‘ve heard the term “fossil fuel” on the post and would like to point out that science has proven that petroleum is created from methane under pressure miles below where we are currently able to extract it commercially.  The Russians have taken the lead in deep drilling (45,000+) and hosted several good symposiums on it.

“Peak Oil” is a scam to control pricing and keep from building new refineries which meet EPA emissions standards which are costly and affect the bottom line.  Cheaper to poison the people and make obsene profits.

Meeting the EPA emissions standard is the most important issue. We heed new technology to “scrub”
exhaust from refineries, power houses, cars and other pollution causing sources.

Very simply, THANK YOU, ANNIE!  Your article should appear in every newspaper and trumpeted in the news (yah, right).

Thomas—-no one wants to listen to your nonsense, we’ve neglected the environment and have shown a complete unwillingness to change our wasteful fossil fuel policies--suburbanites are encouraged to buy trucks; houses are built that lack energy efficiency and the U.S. military is being used as pirates to harvest more fossil fuel in the Middle East. 

During the last three decades innovative methods have NOT been implemented to resolve excessive fossil fuel usage; however, oil companies have reigned supreme controlling all the politicians they lobbied and financed—-making legislators’ mere marionettes. 

Foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq is “fueled” by the economic interests of hydrocarbon conglomerates:  “Despite the general lack of public debate, the geopolitical landscape of this young century is increasingly being driven by escalating competition for energy supplies before global oil production peaks, and the erosion of dollar hegemony with the emergence of new petrocurrency alignments. The hypothesis outlined in Petrodollar Warfare; Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar, is that the tragic war in Iraq is in many ways the first oil-depletion and oil-currency war of the 21st century.”
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/28/open-lett er-to-us-policy-makers-about-energy-and-money/?url=http& #x3A;//www.energybulletin.net/24 172.html&frame=true

So “ Doubting Thomas,” we do not have the luxury of waiting another 30 years, unless of course, you delight in the prospect of interminable wars throughout Africa, Asia and South America where desperate governments fight to maintain control of fossil fuels.

The time to act is now; “energy independence” is our ONLY option.  Alas, it is our misfortune that those in the White House, Senate and Congress are unwilling to supply the leadership necessary to CHANGE the current course of energy INACTION; we are all being led down the path to disaster.

Whether or not it is E-85, bio-diesel or some other coal derived petroleum product, The USA must become self sufficient in our transportion energy needs.

The nation as a whole would profit by those monies being exported would now be reinvested in the US infratructure.  No longer would corporate farmers be subsidized to plant “nothing”.  A John Appleseed movement to plant hemp or other fuel producing plants would theoretically reduce CO2 quantities.  The regreening of America would be a beautiful thing.

Reply to Comment #53045 by LilyMaskew

“We can’t wait until someone, somewhere comes up with the “perfect” alternative.”

Thank you for pointing that out. Further, we would be well served to diversify energy sources. And not pick a winner or condemn a potential winner, waiting for utopia. All could be developing and improving, ultimately a superior source or sources will prevail.

That’s if the oil and gas lobby, don’t block competition and keep us heading down the dead end of a limited resource. What does their future offer? global warming, and wars for limited resources? Best to use what ever time we have to make real efforts to new energy supplies and systems, efficiencies.

Remember, it’s the current oil companies, which have lost us almost a decade of taking any real action on CO2. Funding junk science to keep the myth alive that nothing is happening, and it’s not worth bothering addressing the problem. They have proven themselves dishonest prevayor of the truth. Instead more interested in keeping their industry and profits alive, in spite of the evidence of the damaging being done.

So don’t be surprised that they will use their powerful political influence to destroy competing energy sources. Or keep them at bay, to protect their investments.

Thomas:
“*You* are the one arguing for the use of coal.”

Quote me at any time promoting the use of coal.  If you actually believe that that’s my stance on the issue, then you’ve paid even less attention to what I’ve written than I thought.

I only have one more thing to say to you: You mentioned 5th grade, that’s good, you are on the right track because you obviously need some reading comprehension classes.

Donovan,

I know I said I wouldn’t post again but I feel that I should set the record straight. *You* are the one arguing for the use of coal. I was the one arguing against it. (and against your braindead suggestion that using the electricity from coal burning powerplants to charge an electric car is not functionally the same as running that car on coal).

You mentioned 5th grade, that’s good, you are on the right track because you obviously need some reading comprehension classes.

Thomas

Suggest googling “cellulosic ethanol” and the hope this process brings.  As Annie and others suggest, the final solution will consist of many elements, including wind, fusion (eventually), fuel cells, and many others.  But cellulosic ethanol may offer the best short-term solutions, with news of corn ethanol producers already beginning to convert their plants.  Finally, google Lanny Schmidt at the University of Minnesota, who has new technology to convert ethanol directly to hydrogen for local use (cars, homes).  I believe the changes by 2017 will be amazing.  In fact, the oil-producing countries better look to themselves, because with decreasing demand for oil, they don’t have much else.  Unfriendly actions on their parts will only further motivate us.

The important thing is this country is motivated to change, and there is profit in it.  Now if we only had leaders who are not owned by oil and agriculture.  Vote for a president who has our interests at heart in ‘08.

Thank you for this article; it certainly sparked some interesting debate here.  I think that, at present, no single alternative fuel would fulfill all of our energy needs.  However, as one blogger mentioned above, using a combination of methods to reduce our dependence on oil, as soon as possible, could be feasible.  (i.e., in the South, solar energy - wind power in the Northern U.S., etc.) It appears to me that growing sugar cane might be more efficient that corn ethanol.  The use of crop rotation, would alleviate depleting the soil of vital nutrients, as well as letting some fields lie fallow for a season or two.  The point is to begin using new methods right away.  All these small efforts could add up to fuel savings.  We can’t wait until someone, somewhere comes up with the “perfect” alternative.

Thomas writes likes he’s a 5th grader on those Coal.com commercials talking about how coal is the way to go.  We’re smart enough, Thomas, to see through your bullshit.  So go somewhere else like the Teen Chat in AOL if you’re going to try to convince people of your stupid opinions.

Ethanol from corn is tricky because, and the numbers will be argued, the energy gain is at best about 30% with a modern plant. This makes using corn ethanol as an oil replacement a marginal improvement that will not give a clear gain over fossil fuels.

However, note that on the east coast, many homes are heated with heating oil, which is basically the same as diesel fuel. The only difference is that it has a dye in it and is taxed differently. The mistake is that a high quality fuel is used for heating.

If that diesel were instead used to displace gasoline, with the inherent higher efficiency the same 30% energy gain from corn ethanol would be made anyway. But then how are the houses heated, if not with heating oil?

The answer, is that since the corn would not be used for ethanol, that the houses would be heated by burning corn. In that case the energy gain is about 700% or something like that, because all the losses through the fermentation and distillation processes disappear. This also opens the way for other biomass fuels.

It is this redistribution of the fuels to better uses that will need to be embraced to realize the true potential of such alternative fuels.

Moe Hare,

You said: “It sounds like you might have led the planning committee for the Iraq Invasion.”

LOL, are you trying to make my point for me?!? The war in Iraq is a perfect example of how terrible things can turn out when we push to action without fully formed plans. Putting aside the fact that the war in Iraq was a poorly thought out idea from the start, the reason we are in the mess we are in there now is exactly *because* we *didn’t* have a plan! No plan for securing the peace, no plan to stop the initial chaos and looting, no plan to address civil strife or assuage sectarian tensions, no plans period… and now you want to march ahead with the same mindless call to action that president Bush used to get us into such a mess? Don’t you remember his hasty rush to war? Are you so foolish that you can’t see the parallels? Exactly how is it that you think that I sound like I was on the planning committee for Iraq when I am calling for *more* planning and analysis of what are currently unworkable and unwise ideas and you think that you don’t sound like you were on that committee even though you are the one calling to push ahead with incomplete plans regardless of any possible unforseen consequences or complications?… and Donovan calls me an idiot? Sheeesh!

I can see that I’m falling on deaf ears here so I’ll not post again. Good luck with your efforts lemmings. : )

Thomas

“When a project isn’t fully planned and analyzed, especially an important project, planning and analysis *is* action.”

Thomas,
It sounds like you might have led the planning committee for the Iraq Invasion.

I don’t think we have the luxury of time, to sit around indefinitely waiting for just the RIGHT ANSWER. Technology now exists to start making changes in how we create and utilize energy, and it may be to our benefit to establish multiple energy alternatives.

We are now at the “mercy” of the oil companies which has determined our Middle East policy--a total failure.

Investors no longer want to invest in the U.S.--fortunes are being invested internationally. It would be an excellent time for the U.S. to initiate new energy industries and technologies, thus creating positions for U.S. scientist and engineers.

And don’t believe “traitor” politicians, when they tell the public that there are not enough Americans to fill these positions. The unemployment statistics do not reflect the true facts about middle class “unemployment.”

New energy development and technology could be a great rallying point to “jump start” the middle class economy, bringing investors back to the U.S., creating “good paying” jobs for those displaced by globalization and renewing hope for our country--it is a win, win scenario; one that should be implemented NOW.

I’ve lost my patience with Thomas.  I’m done talking with such a idiot.

Moe Hare,

Your comments really make me roll my eyes. Are you saying that the only way for us to not look like fools is to mindlessly push incomplete and possibly counterproductive plans into premature implementation like a bunch of lemmings herding themselves off of a cliff as a solution to a looming threat on the horizon? Even assuming that the lemming threat was completely real do you think their solution was any better for them? The idea that because a problem is important we should skip planning and analysis and move straight to hopeful cross-your-fingers implementation of a poorly thought out “solution” is not only irresponsible, it’s just plain stupid. When a project isn’t fully planned and analyzed, especially an important project, planning and analysis *is* action.

Thomas

“The real point is that all advanced technologies create exotic supply problems.”

Thomas,

So let’s sit back like fools, and do NOTHING about the environment!

Donovan,

What??? You say everything is trivial when we are talking about the habitability of the planet? So then I guess the laws of physics don’t apply to us… I guess it’s possible to take an unlimited supply of energy from the wind without affecting climate patterns and possibly changing the climate system as radically as global warming would… I guess it’s possible to blanket the earth with solar panels without affecting the climate which is no longer recieving the solar energy that we are removing or without radically altering the reflective index of the ground so that more energy is either absorbed or reflected into space thus skewing the planetary balances that support us… I guess it’s possible to spend 15 or 20 years putting in place a solution to a problem that might be moot in 10 years because our industrial system collapsed under the weight of scarce resources and sky-high energy costs. Every single one of these issues may not be a problem, it may all be possible. But you don’t know whether they are or not any more than I do so portraying them as reasonable well thought out solutions that just need our unrestrained effort to bring to fruition is completely irresponsible. These are *not* trivial issues.

In regard to electricity, I thought you already admitted that most of the electricity in America is generated from coal fired power plants. If your car is running on electricity that was generated by burning coal then your car is responsible for all the coal that was burned to generate that electricity. Currently, and for the foreseeable future, electric cars require just as much petroleum to run as conventional cars… Actually *more* petroleum because of the energy that is wasted in converting the coal to electricity and in pushing it through the distribution lines to your house or charging point, and then converting the energy yet again into stored chemical energy in the battery. Keep in mind that each time energy is converted from one form or another some of it is lost due to inefficiency. What does it matter if the point at which the coal is burned is actually in the car itself or at an electric plant?… It doesn’t. As things stand now in order to run an electric car you must burn coal!

As for batteries… you say that there are other types of batteries than lithium ion and some have advantages that lithium ion batteries don’t. Maybe that’s true but lithium ion batteries also have major advantages that lead/acid and NiMH batteries don’t and lithium ion batteries are really the best battery technology available today. Why else would most modern electric and hybrid car designs use them? In fact the very Tesla motors car that you originally cited and gave specs for to buttress your claim that electric cars were feasible uses lithium ion batteries! The real point is that all advanced technologies create exotic supply problems.

Thomas

It is all about personal gain.  The oil Barrons
now have all the rights to corn alchohol we thought we would get to use for fuel.  They have stopped most of the production of gasahol to push the price of gasahol above the cost of a gallon of gasoline.  Until you remove the powers that be it will be extremely difficult to ever accomplish anything. 
Maybe we should all go back to horse and buggy
and scoop up the roadapples in the street for a cleaner and safer environment.

Thomas,

“...I don’t think that the difficulties can be trivialized...” Yes they can.  Everything is trivial when we’re talking about the habitability of the planet.  So if it’s difficult or expensive, so be it.  We don’t have a choice; we either do what’s right or we say fuck it.  It’s pointless to be anywhere in between.

Keep the goal in mind: don’t become Venus.  If it takes 25, 50, or 100 years to bring our existence to equilibrium with the planet, then so be it.  Don’t become Venus.

Not all batteries are made with lithium.  So you’re concern for the lithium supply is dubious.  They’re not the best batteries around, either.  They have drawbacks that nickel and lead batteries don’t.

Electric are in no way as polluting as combustion driven cars.  I’m dumbfounded as to why you would make an unjustifiable statement like that.  Assume, for argument’s sake that the energy needed to manufacture all vehicles (electric or otherwise) came from coal burning plants.  Now get rid of all combustion driven cars and swap them with electric.  You’re saying that the CO2 emissions wouldn’t be significantly reduced?  Without electric cars there’s two sources of CO2 production, the plants supply the energy to make the cars and the cars themselves.  You can elminate one source by taking that “dirty” energy to make electric cars.  Thereby removing one source of CO2 prodution.

Great comments here...wow!  A couple of things we know for sure are that inaction is not a viable option, and that there is not one way to move forward (nor does their need to be only one way).  As I said in the interview, we are looking at many ways to promote safer, saner energy with a future (for us) in mind.  This will require different energy sources for transportation, and passive needs. It will also PROVIDE American jobs, and build America’s economy, while making us safer.

Are all these options guaranteed to be the best...no, they are not. many of the comments made by Rayna Kay, and Alan were right on, by reminding us that moving forward, and replacing our dependence on another country’s resources for OUR survival is dangerous at best.  Alan’s point about the real cost of petroleum based carbon fuel, and the expense of transporting it, left out only one thing; given the fact that we have to go to other countries to seek out or fuel, we must all ask ourselves how much we would pay for a gallon of gas if the real costs were added into the price?  For instance, ask yourself just this one question...HOW MUCH IS YOUR CHILD’S LIFE WORTH?

Alan,

You say that plants take in CO2 (as they grow) and release CO2 (when burned), and that’s very true, but where is the C02 in the meantime? (between when it is released and when it is reabsorbed)… It’s circulating through the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect. The fact that bio-fuels might slightly mitigate climate change because we wouldn’t be adding new carbon from underground will be small consolation if global warming continues anyway because of the stable albeit dramatically elevated levels of C02 that bio-fuels would require us to cycle through the atmosphere on a continual basis.

Thomas

Donovan,

I never stated that because it was difficult we shouldn’t do it, but I don’t think that the difficulties can be trivialized either, especially as they relate to time requirements. Let’s optimistically say that it would only take 15 years to switch over our primary energy sources for electricity generation from coal to solar, wind, and geothermal. Can we afford to wait that long? And what if it takes 20 years, or 25? In the meantime electric cars are just as polluting as conventional cars and they will remain so until we are well into the process of our electricity generation conversion. In that context they might be a valuable possibility in the indeterminate future but they currently do absolutely nothing to reduce pollution or greenhouse gases, that was my point.

Also, in regard to the long term possibilities of electric vehicles, you never answered my question:

Is there enough lithium in the world that is economically feasible to extract and commodify to create lithium ion batteries for everyone in America? or would we just be trading a peak oil problem for a peak lithium problem?… and a dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign lithium?

Thomas

The hotter our planet gets the more we lack power and strength so we need renewed energy and
we’ve been given bio-fuel as renewed energy and
it’s about how thankful we can be that we have an option that will save our lives.
In life, when you travel a long distance you get tired but you don’t give up, you get renewed energy so you don’t collapse.
Americans are in no way lazy, they have worked this land together since the day they arrived on the Mayflower and most improtantly they never gave up.  We are all living proof of that.
This isn’t about anyone’s own self gain.
If we want to make a difference, we have to come together.  Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf where there is hatred.  We’ll have to work to make the necessary changes that will save us.  It isn’t about how hard the farm work will be, it is about the blessings we will reap and it’s about how thankful we can be.

Some of you folks are hung up on the fact that ethanol and bio-diesel require energy to refine and bring to market.  It takes energy to transport crude oil from the Middle East, refine, and transport it to local markets too.  Nobody said they are magic bullets. 

If matter can’t be created or destroyed someone explain to me how you can get more CO2 out of plant based fuels than was originally trapped by it.  Plants take in CO2 and release O2.  Where did the carbon go?  The plant trapped it.  When the plant is broken down (burned as fuel) the carbon is released and reacts with O2. 

The fact that we would be transferring less of our wealth to a region in chaos where some have openly sworn to destroy us, is reason enough for me support bio-fuels.  We have got to learn to walk before we can run.

We need people to lead this country not control it!

Thomas:
“...even if we started today and put the full might of our national will behind such an initiative...”

So because it’s too difficult, then we shouldn’t do it?  Because our generation might not see the benefit we shouldn’t do it?  The lack of consideration for future generations is how this global warming problem got disposed to our shoulders.

I understand that most of the electrical grid is generated by coal burning plants… so switch over to solar, or wind, or X… combine all of them.  We (Americans) obviously don’t have a problem with wasteful spending of hundreds of billions of dollars (Iraq War).  So why not spend money, far less money, on something worthwhile?  Some scientists say that we have 15 years max until we get to the point of no return for global warming.  Their criteria for that estimation is along the lines of there being so many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that climate temp’s will be irreversibly hotter.  My desire is for us not to turn into Venus.

So if you and I die before the global warming is curbed, then so be it… as long my off-spring will be around to enjoy it.

Thomas,

I believe some people just need to keep believing what they want to believe no matter what reality says, so in that vein I must wish you well, and agree to disagree with your facts, and your comments.

One I will not let go is the statement that you made insinuating that I am promoting marijuana because I mentioned hemp.
Fact:  Hemp is not a psychoactive drug. It is only the female plant which produces THC, not the male “hemp.” I cannot help that you do not understand the difference.  Nor can I control what you wish/choose to believe. My husband’s generation grew hemp as scouts, and in school for rope and sails for ships during the war.  It was only once the powerful DuPont Corp. received their nylon patent that hemp was maligned.  Before that it was a spectacular rotation crop, as well as a source of wood fiber, paper (the Declaration of Independence is wriiten on hemp), clothing fiber, food protien, AND oil (the Diesel engine was designed to run on peanut and hemp oil, not petroleum which is actually hard on the engine and reduces effeciency).

I must say I found your comment on this as offensive as it was ignorant.  Not that it is anyone’s business, but I do not smoke marijuana.  I understand that there are still many out there who cannot think “outside the box.” It does not need to remain so.

Having said that, I appreciate the debate, and information others have brought forth in this comment section.  I would like to add that I absolutely agree that their is no one magic bullet to replace the outrageous energy we consume now.  It will be a combination of efforts, of which the technology is growing.  I am proud to be part of, along with all of you, a paradigm shift in the way we have been consuming energy.  At present, we are 4% of the global population, yet we consume 25% of the planet’s energy.  That alone should be reason for Americans to find new paths to walk. 

I am, at present, attending the 07 Sustainable Biodiesel Conference in San Antonio, Tx., as well as the National Biodiesel Conference.  I would like to share with you that there are many who see the same vision, and are prepared to do what it takes to educate others to the possibilities our future holds.  American’s are brilliant, but lazy, but when pushed can be the greatest innovators.  Sometimes we just have to wade through the muck to get there.  I assure you...it’s worth it.

I agree with Donovan’s statement: “I believe a reason that any single alternative energy source—solar, wind, etc.—has not become prevalent in society is because we have expected that just one source is to supply our demands.  We need to develop and incorporate all methods of producing energy.  That is, we need to create the necessary infrastructure for alternative energy generation all at once and use them in tandem.”

Thomas—The urine / guano mention was meant as an example of the variety of nutrients available. I’m certainly not proposing that urine and guano are specifically THE answers. Sorry if it came off that way. The gamut of nutrient options is the thing.

I don’t think any option will present itself that has absolutely no depletive effects what-so-ever. Except, maybe, lightning. But then, if we harnessed all lightning, we’d be depriving the world of naturally occurring forest fires or something of that sort. Do you have any suggestions?

I wonder if crude oil itself serves some purpose within the earth’s biology that we are thwarting by its removal… And solar panels shade otherwise sunny areas… And windmills stand in the way of naturally flowing currents…

“I believe a reason that any single alternative energy source—solar, wind, etc.—has not become prevalent in society is because we have expected that just one source is to supply our demands.  We need to develop and incorporate all methods of producing energy.  That is, we need to create the necessary infrastructure for alternative energy generation all at once and use them in tandem.”

Donavan,
Your assessment is correct diversity in energy sources is the best way to go—-electrical cars could have been the dominate vehicle on the road today, but as you pointed out corrupt business practices consistently conflict with environmental concerns.

Gore’s film “The Inconvenient Truth,” points out the futility of “profit” if we no longer have a planet.

Donovan,

You refer to electric cars without any mention of the fact that the vast majority of electricity in America is generated in coal fired power plants and that coal releases much more pollution and just as much greenhouse gas as oil. I recently saw a video on google where a lady was doing a newscast and interviewing a proponent of electric vehicles who in one breath was calling them “zero emission”, and in the very next breath was stating that you plugged them in at night to charge them. Neither of them had any sense whatsoever of the irony of those two statements. Given the current state of electricity generation in America, electric vehicles are fundamentally just coal powered vehicles and in that context they are certainly not zero emission.

You will no doubt state that we should generate the electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal but even if we started today and put the full might of our national will behind such an initiative, creating the infrastructure necessary to support such an additional load on the electric grid would take decades to put in place. We’re not just talking about the massive capital investment in time, materials, and manufacturing capacity for thousands upon thousands upon even more thousands of windmills and/or solar panels, not to mention a nationwide fleet replacement, we’re talking about the electric grid, transmission lines, and distribution systems. You have to get the power from the panels to the consumer.

Then there is the issue of batteries themselves… Is there enough lithium in the world that is economically feasible to extract and commodify to create lithium ion batteries for everyone in America? or would we just be trading a peak oil problem for a peak lithium problem?… and a dependence on foriegn oil for a dependence on foreign lithium?

Americans may drive inefficient gas guzzling vehicles but it’s not as simple as that. Our society is too suburbanized. A lot of our transportation fuels are used for shipping and delivery of food, for long commutes to work, for similar commutes to the grocery store and other areas of necessity. You can’t really walk anywhere anymore and even if much of our travel is wasteful and extravagant much of it is also necessary to keep the economy going. I know people who drive 30 miles to work every day and much of our food wends it’s way through thousands of miles of shipping and delivery related transit. I don’t disagree that we can and should conserve fuel but there is a lower limit on how much fuel we can afford to be without and still have a functioning industrial economy… an economy that supports an industrial system that will be necessary to put in place the very energy generation alternatives that you are advocating.

I’m not against electric cars. I am not fundamentally against any alternative energy proposals, but I am against the portrayal of these technologies as robust and fully thought out solutions that are only being held back by the government or competing business interests and conspiracies. There are very real and significant issues and hurdles to be addressed, and they must be addressed *before* we commit ourselves to a solution. We can’t afford to do this twice because we went down the wrong path with a poorly thought out strategy. It’s a catch-22, we are running out of the energy source upon which our industrial system depends but manufacturing and deploying alternative energy solutions requires a functioning industrial system, and in the absence of petroleum based energy that very industrial system relies upon those alternatives. If we wait too long we’re screwed, but if we act rashly we will waste precious time and material and still be at square one. When it comes right down to the bottom line it’s not that we can’t afford to do this twice, it’s that we are in such a precarious position that we, as an industrial society, won’t be around to attempt it twice!

Thomas

Wild Goose wrote:

“So how do we sort out fact from myth and propaganda? There’s so much info out there, and a lot of it just boils down to advertising for the businesses involved, strategies by people competing for funding dollars.”

I think the answer to this is going back the basics.  I would rather call them “essentials,” though.  It’s very easy to spot a phony solution to the emission of greenhouse gases when you know a little high school chemistry and physics.  I’m not a genius; I’ve just been able to retain more from high school and college science classes than most of the public.

I contend that a root cause to why we are languishing in our reserves of crude oil is that we are discounting the necessity to halt global warming by saying that alternative sources of energy cannot meas