Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [usa-tesla] Researchers upgrade ethanol production

Expand Messages
  • Ed Phillips
    I should not mention it, but I will. You are making fuel, not drink. Get really bold. Electrolyze hydrogen from water. Add a drying chamber for your organics,
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I should not mention it, but I will.
      You are making fuel, not drink. Get really bold.
      Electrolyze hydrogen from water. Add a drying chamber for your organics,
      so you have a dry carbonacious residue going in. Heat it to above the
      char point and add just enough oxygen to make mostly pure CO. With a
      catalyst bed, iron oxide I think, you can transform the H2O, CO, and H2
      into alcolhols and/or fuel oils. The details are beyond me, but we do
      have some commercial plants running these conversions. This is like what
      the Germans used during WWII to make fuel from coal."

      It is a very legit matter for discussion. As to how fruitful this
      approach may be "The devil is in the details", which have been known for
      a long time as you point out.
      Here's an interesting reference which credits Standard oil for a great
      deal of the work in this area:

      http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_04.htm

      I don't know how reliable that source i but my uncle was a petroleum
      geologist before WW2 and he told me the same thing after the war. He
      also prediced early depletion of our national oil reserves and he he was
      pretty close on that. As for the German work during WW2 they only got
      into that when their petroleum sources were taken away from them.
      Remember that the main reason they went into the Baku area of Russia was
      to get the Baku oil fields and when they lost them they were in real
      trouble.

      Ed
    • Ed Phillips
      Something that the extreme tree huggers overlook with their constant cry for recycling on a planet with a finite amount of potential energy , until someone
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Something that the extreme tree huggers overlook with their constant cry
        for recycling
        on a planet with a finite amount of potential energy , until someone finds
        a reliable tap
        into the Aether...

        JB"

        I see where you have far greater faith in the tree huggers'
        scientific credentials than I do! As for tapping the Aether, as you
        know plenty of people imagine that Tesla worked that out and David
        Thompson was our expert on the subject - too bad he moved on to other
        venues before this discussion started.

        Ed
      • Codesuidae
        ... I ran across that article earlier today actually. It s nice to see someone questioning the practicality of ethanol. ... [Soapbox mode on] We aren t going
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 7, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Ed Phillips wrote:
          > The February 12 issue of US News and World Report has a feature
          > article called "Is Ethanol the Answer?, subtitled "POLITICALLY IT'S A
          > WINNER. BUT EXPERTS AREN'T SURE ETHANOL CAN DELIVER ON ITS PROMISE".
          > Worth reading for anyone interested in the subject. Some interesting
          > points:

          I ran across that article earlier today actually. It's nice to see
          someone questioning the practicality of ethanol.

          > My personal opinion is that it's fine to continue studies of ethanol
          > as a gasoline substitute but that there's likely to be far more future
          > benefit from building more nuclear power plants and doing more
          > research on environmentally friendly use of our vast coal reserves.
          >
          > Final opinion is that we aren't going to be successful in reducing our
          > dependence on foreign petroleum supplies until the cost of gasoline is
          > far higher than it is today.
          [Soapbox mode on]

          We aren't going to be successful in reducing dependence until we reduce
          our consumption of fossil fuels. Our wasteful lifestyle and continuously
          expanding appetite for energy cannot be met by any renewable energy
          source that we have now or are likely to bring to large-scale commercial
          viability in the next few decades.

          If we were to create such a technology, we still have to build out
          sufficient production capacity to supply an ocean of fuel (140 billion
          gallons per year plus 2% per year) before such time that rising oil
          costs damage our economy enough to affect our ability to complete
          build-out.
          If we grow this technology at a very large rate, say 15% per year for 25
          years then we might possibly replace oil-based fuels (at a typical
          growth rate of 2% fuel consumption would be up around 200 billion
          gallons by then). (I'm disregarding the 20% less energy per gallon
          contained in ethanol, fuel efficiency gains should make up the
          difference, and then some)

          Maybe it could be done, but does it make sense to go to such lengths so
          that we can drive 3 ton SUV's 10 miles one way to pick up $2 worth of
          groceries (which themselves traveled 1000 miles by rail before arriving
          at the store)? Or perhaps we as a society need to come to terms with our
          ridiculous addiction to excess and start being stewards of the world
          rather than exploiters.

          [soapbox off]

          Sorry, I've recently been writing a lot of stuff like that trying to
          help some friends realize why ethanol, wind, solar and other such
          alternative energy technologies just aren't going to make a hill of
          beans worth of difference in the near term (the next 10-15 years). I
          know several readers here maintain a fairly low environmental footprint
          (much smaller than my own, which I'm working to reduce), so I don't mean
          to get all preachy. It just bugs me to see a discussion about how we
          might meet our fuel demands that doesn't include the most important
          part. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is *stop
          digging*.

          CS
        • McGalliard, Frederick B
          Ed. Don t DIS tree huggers. I are one. More or less. But I grant that stupid is still stupid. ________________________________ From: Ed Phillips
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Ed. Don't DIS tree huggers. I are one. More or less.
            But I grant that stupid is still stupid.


            From: Ed Phillips [mailto:evp@...]
            Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:36 PM
            To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Researchers upgrade ethanol production

            Something that the extreme tree huggers overlook with their constant cry
            for recycling
            on a planet with a finite amount of potential energy , until someone finds
            a reliable tap
            into the Aether...

            JB"

            I see where you have far greater faith in the tree huggers'
            scientific credentials than I do! As for tapping the Aether, as you
            know plenty of people imagine that Tesla worked that out and David
            Thompson was our expert on the subject - too bad he moved on to other
            venues before this discussion started.

            Ed

          • McGalliard, Frederick B
            Not Ethanol, Corn, where ethanol is a way to make corn into a useful fuel. Ethanol is a fine fuel, and a great mixer. Less poisonous than Methanol. There is no
            Message 5 of 27 , Feb 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Not Ethanol, Corn, where ethanol is a way to make corn into a useful fuel. Ethanol is a fine fuel, and a great mixer.
              Less poisonous than Methanol.
               
              There is no question that our cities and our jobs are designed around cheap fuel. Our workers commute large distances so they can live in less crowded and less crime ridden conditions in the suburbs, and still work. I would challenge you to take out your ideas of "our wasteful lifestyle" and figure out what is actually practical, not for one or two exceptional people willing to sacrifice for the cause, but for the overall lifestyle of the USA as a community. I think you will find, on close examination, that it is really quite difficult to reduce the fuel demand without making major changes to a number of aspects of life as we know it. Any way, I personally would find that discussion more fun than just berating us awful wasteful folk.


              From: Codesuidae [mailto:codesuidae@...]
              Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:48 PM
              To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Researchers upgrade ethanol production

               ...

               I ran across that article earlier today actually. It's nice to see
              someone questioning the practicality of ethanol.

               ... 
              Our wasteful lifestyle and continuously
              expanding appetite for energy

              .

            • Jet Black
              Ed I m not quite sure on how you interpreted my view on extreme tree huggers wether they have scientific credentials or not is of no consequence. An extreme
              Message 6 of 27 , Feb 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Ed
                I'm not quite sure on how you interpreted my view on "extreme tree huggers"
                wether they have scientific credentials or not is of no consequence.
                An extreme tree hugger (in my books) will want to recycle _everything_
                with no thought as to wether the finite amount of energy we have here
                can be used for something much more productive than recycling.
                My faith in extreme tree huggers = Zero.

                As far as finding a tap into the elusive Aether , I'm sure David Thompson
                is not the only one trying to find a way or method to do so.

                I often wonder if the 3 basic ways of making "electricity"
                (chemically , mechanically & heat) are the only ways we
                have found or are allowed (by the Rules) to tap into the Aether...

                I'm with Fred , I'll smile at the tree's as I drive along polluting up
                the place , not throw rubbish out the windows & keep a healthy
                biological army of ants & spiders around to protect me & my property.
                Live with the Land not on it.

                JB

                Fred wrote
                >Ed. Don't DIS tree huggers. I are one. More or less.
                >But I grant that stupid is still stupid.
                >
                >
                >----------
                >From: Ed Phillips [mailto:evp@...]
                >Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:36 PM
                >To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Researchers upgrade ethanol production
                >
                >Something that the extreme tree huggers overlook with their constant cry
                >for recycling on a planet with a finite amount of potential energy ,
                >until someone finds a reliable tap into the Aether...
                >
                >JB"
                >
                >I see where you have far greater faith in the tree huggers'
                >scientific credentials than I do! As for tapping the Aether, as you
                >know plenty of people imagine that Tesla worked that out and David
                >Thompson was our expert on the subject - too bad he moved on to other
                >venues before this discussion started.
                >
                >Ed
              • Michael Riversong Education
                Thanks so much for writing this stuff, especially for distribution outside this list! Every bit helps. We really did reduce energy consumption dramatically
                Message 7 of 27 , Feb 11, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks so much for writing this stuff, especially for distribution outside this list! Every bit helps.

                  We really did reduce energy consumption dramatically between 1976-1979. Part of that was a function of leadership. Carter may have had his flaws, but he did inspire a lot of people at the time. Many tiny things were done by a large enough number of people, to make a serious difference.

                  Note how all that changed after 1980. The culture inspired by the new leadership at that time basically got people thinking about comfort more than conservation. After that, SUVs became more prominent. And they can be comfortable. On Wednesday i got to drive a Honda Odyssey through parts of Denver, and was really impressed. But it is not a very conservative vehicle!

                  Weatherization also helped. However, it had the side effect of sealing up homes of that era so tightly that mold is now a serious problem. Some kind of balance needs to be found in that area.

                  If large numbers of people go at conservation with good intentions, that will help a lot.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  >From: Codesuidae <codesuidae@...>
                  >Sent: Feb 7, 2007 9:47 PM
                  >To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                  >Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Researchers upgrade ethanol production
                  >
                  >
                  >Sorry, I've recently been writing a lot of stuff like that trying to
                  >help some friends realize why ethanol, wind, solar and other such
                  >alternative energy technologies just aren't going to make a hill of
                  >beans worth of difference in the near term (the next 10-15 years). I
                  >know several readers here maintain a fairly low environmental footprint
                  >(much smaller than my own, which I'm working to reduce), so I don't mean
                  >to get all preachy. It just bugs me to see a discussion about how we
                  >might meet our fuel demands that doesn't include the most important
                  >part. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is *stop
                  >digging*.
                  >
                  >CS


                  -- Michael Riversong
                  Professional Teacher & Harpist
                  Cheyenne, Wyoming
                  (307)635-0900
                  rivedu@...
                • Codesuidae
                  ... I have been doing that over the last year or so. The solution primarily revolves around relocalization, the development and utilization of local resources.
                  Message 8 of 27 , Feb 12, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    McGalliard, Frederick B wrote:
                    >
                    > I would challenge you to take out your ideas of "our wasteful
                    > lifestyle" and figure out what is actually practical,

                    I have been doing that over the last year or so. The solution primarily
                    revolves around relocalization, the development and utilization of local
                    resources. During the summer I have been trying to buy most of my food
                    from local farmers. I should not have been surprised to find that not
                    only is the food better, it's cheaper than any of the supermarket stuff.
                    This spring I'm putting in a garden to supply at least some of my own
                    food. I try to minimize fuel consumption, but the store within walking
                    distance burned down last winter and because a new Super Wal-Mart went
                    in a few miles down the highway it was not rebuilt. About the only thing
                    left in walking distance is the gas station, an irony I appreciate.

                    It is difficult to conserve when living in a society of conspicuous
                    consumption, but I'm working on it, in the ways that I can fit into the
                    financial realities of my life.

                    > Our workers commute large distances so they can live in less crowded
                    > and less crime ridden conditions in the suburbs, and still work.

                    Cheap fuel creates the conditions that lead to crowded, crime-ridden
                    cities. Does it make sense that applying more cheap fuel is the best
                    solution to the problem?

                    > I think you will find, on close examination, that it is really quite
                    > difficult to reduce the fuel demand without making major changes to a
                    > number of aspects of life as we know it.

                    You are correct, our lifestyles must change. This is why I find it so
                    frustrating that people expect to simply start filling their SUV's with
                    ethanol so they can continue their daily trips to Starbucks in the Super
                    Ultra Mega Mart. They fail to comprehend the enormous amount of energy
                    contained in the cubic miles of fossil fuels we extract each year. We
                    can't just switch to ethanol/biodiesel/electric and keep on driving, we
                    simply cannot reasonably collect sufficient energy to continue doing
                    what we are doing.

                    The only solutions to this problem are difficult and unpopular (at least
                    for now). But I think that maybe, just maybe, the American people are
                    ready for and could meet the challenge, given the right leadership.

                    CS
                    > ------------------------- *From:* Codesuidae
                    >
                    > ... Our wasteful lifestyle and continuously expanding appetite for
                    > energy
                  • Codesuidae
                    ... I ve taken to writing my congressional representatives semi-monthly, typically to gently criticize their decisions regarding energy policy. I ve attempted
                    Message 9 of 27 , Feb 12, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael Riversong Education wrote:
                      > Thanks so much for writing this stuff, especially for distribution outside this list! Every bit helps.
                      >

                      I've taken to writing my congressional representatives semi-monthly,
                      typically to gently criticize their decisions regarding energy policy.
                      I've attempted to explain why the 'hydrogen economy' is a ridiculous and
                      dangerous idea, why photovoltaic is a poor choice for government
                      subsidies, and why ethanol, while important, is not where they should be
                      focusing their limited time.

                      Right now the focus should be on education, conservation and
                      relocalization. We can get far more out of changing our habits than we
                      can out of waiting for the technology genie. Don't get me wrong, I love
                      the technology genie, but unless he's got blueprints for
                      commercially-viable, large-scale fusion plants and the infrastructure to
                      deliver helium for them we're going to need to quit making this hole deeper.

                      > Weatherization also helped.
                      >

                      I am flabbergasted at the design philosophy applied in some older homes.
                      My mother-in-law rents a big old early 1900's home in Ohio because it is
                      big and the rent is low. In the winter the heating bill is nearly $400 a
                      month, exceeding the rent. It boggles the mind.

                      > If large numbers of people go at conservation with good intentions, that will help a lot.
                      >

                      Absolutely. Curiously though, if not-so-large numbers of people conserve
                      you run the risk of encountering "Jevons Paradox" where the conservation
                      merely feeds the machine and makes the problem worse. Stated one way it
                      is "as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a
                      resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase,
                      rather than decrease."

                      One explanation runs thusly: If you are a warehouse owner interested in
                      conservation, you might install skylights in your warehouse and thereby
                      reduce your electricity use by $1000 a month. Great, but now you have
                      $1000 available every month (once you've finished paying for the loan
                      used to install the skylights anyway). You might reinvest that money in
                      the company, perhaps to hire another employee or train your workers to
                      work more effectively, thereby increasing the amount of business you do,
                      ultimately shipping more goods. Of course, that increases your fuel
                      requirements. The $1000 you 'saved' in electricity goes back into the
                      system and eventually ends up consuming more energy somewhere. Perhaps
                      you should just save that money for a rainy day instead? You put it
                      safely in the bank. And the bank promptly lends it out to other business
                      owners, not just once, but several times over, effectively multiplying
                      the consumptive power of the money.

                      Our economy is as a giant machine. It consumes energy and raw materials
                      to create trash and smiles. Anything you do to make it more efficient
                      just makes it run faster, consuming more energy and raw materials,
                      producing more trash and smiles. You can even feed the trash back into
                      it by burning it, recycling it, thermal depolymerizing it or composting
                      it into fields for fertilizer. Now the machine goes even faster and just
                      makes smiles. That's great, everybody likes smiles, but eventually you
                      realize that you'll eventually run out of energy or raw materials or
                      that the machine has outgrown the planet and that you'll have to find
                      somewhere else to get smiles.

                      It's not quite that bad of course, but the simile serves to illustrate
                      the point. If we'd all just slow down and find something else to smile
                      about it would all be peaches and cream. But then how many successful
                      ideas have you seen that start with "If we'd all just...."?

                      I don't mean to imply that there are no solutions or that conservation
                      is not the answer. You just have to understand that partial or
                      incomplete solutions will fail and may make things worse. Good
                      intentions alone are not sufficient, one must also have a clear and
                      correct map, to ensure that one is paving the correct road.

                      CS
                      --
                      "Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M.
                      King Hubbert
                    • Jet Black
                      Initially Codesuidae s mention of Jevons Paradox was a depressing bitchslap to me. It seemed that if an individual did something good it could quadruple
                      Message 10 of 27 , Feb 14, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Initially Codesuidae's mention of "Jevons Paradox" was a depressing bitchslap
                        to me.
                        It seemed that if an individual did something "good" it could quadruple the
                        fuel
                        that was fed into the aptly named "smile & trash machine"

                        I played out numerous scenario's & variations of Jevons Paradox & the
                        end result was never pretty. Short term smiles , long term trash.

                        My conclusion:
                        People will want to do something "good" for personal gain ,
                        concern for the environment or whatever reason they have.
                        Can't really change that part.

                        Sooo how do we destroy the existing machine & what do we replace
                        it with ?

                        If properly tooled up & all us all in our prime , this list
                        would be a scary force to be reckoned with , even with
                        consent & financial backing from the authorities we could
                        not de commission the existing machine.

                        Maybe if we built a machine that gives out more smiles than
                        you put in , the existing smile & trash machine will become
                        redundant as it has no trash to burn.

                        I had a read through Tesla's article "The Problem of
                        Increasing Humanity" for some possible inspiration.
                        http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

                        There's a lot of good & bad suggestions in it , some
                        subtle & some extreme , copper vs aluminium , etc etc..
                        eventually Tesla does mention an unfinished project
                        that may lead to a suitable Smile machine....

                        "In the process, as I had primarily conceived it, for the utilization of
                        the energy of the ambient medium, there were five essential elements in
                        combination, and each of these had to be newly designed and perfected, as
                        no such machines existed. The mechanical oscillator was the first element
                        of this combination, and having perfected this, I turned to the next, which
                        was an air-compressor of a design in certain respects resembling that of
                        the mechanical oscillator. Similar difficulties in the construction were
                        again encountered, but the work was pushed vigorously, and at the close of
                        1894 I had completed these two elements of the combination, and thus
                        produced an apparatus for compressing air, virtually to any desired
                        pressure, incomparably simpler, smaller, and more efficient than the
                        ordinary. I was just beginning work on the third element, which together
                        with the first two would give a refrigerating machine of exceptional
                        efficiency and simplicity, when a misfortune befell me in the burning of my
                        laboratory, which crippled my labors and delayed me. Shortly afterward Dr.
                        Carl Linde announced the liquefaction of air by a self-cooling process,
                        demonstrating that it was practicable to proceed with the cooling until
                        liquefaction of the air took place. This was the only experimental proof
                        which I was still wanting that energy was obtainable from the medium in the
                        manner contemplated by me."


                        It is important that you completely read

                        A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS—POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE OR
                        MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE A LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY
                        FROM THE MEDIUM—THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER.

                        &

                        FIRST EFFORTS TO PRODUCE THE SELF-ACTING ENGINE—THE MECHANICAL
                        OSCILLATOR—WORK OF DEWAR AND LINDE—LIQUID AIR.

                        To see the options that Tesla has considered.


                        The last sentence of the last chapter is somewhat open for interpretation......

                        "it will be commercially profitable if my expectations are well founded, it
                        will not be so to an extraordinary degree"

                        Commercially profitable seems well defined , but what does
                        an "extraordinary" individual consider to be an extraordinary
                        degree ?

                        Elements 4 & 5 for this device still remain a mystery to me....they didn't
                        exist in 1900.

                        Did Tesla just dismiss the idea of building this "self acting engine"
                        because
                        it wouldn't work or did he dismiss it because it wouldn't work as well as
                        he wanted ?

                        JB



                        >Michael Riversong Education wrote:
                        > > Thanks so much for writing this stuff, especially for distribution
                        > outside this list! Every bit helps.
                        > >
                        >
                        >I've taken to writing my congressional representatives semi-monthly,
                        >typically to gently criticize their decisions regarding energy policy.
                        >I've attempted to explain why the 'hydrogen economy' is a ridiculous and
                        >dangerous idea, why photovoltaic is a poor choice for government
                        >subsidies, and why ethanol, while important, is not where they should be
                        >focusing their limited time.
                        >
                        >Right now the focus should be on education, conservation and
                        >relocalization. We can get far more out of changing our habits than we
                        >can out of waiting for the technology genie. Don't get me wrong, I love
                        >the technology genie, but unless he's got blueprints for
                        >commercially-viable, large-scale fusion plants and the infrastructure to
                        >deliver helium for them we're going to need to quit making this hole deeper.
                        >
                        > > Weatherization also helped.
                        > >
                        >
                        >I am flabbergasted at the design philosophy applied in some older homes.
                        >My mother-in-law rents a big old early 1900's home in Ohio because it is
                        >big and the rent is low. In the winter the heating bill is nearly $400 a
                        >month, exceeding the rent. It boggles the mind.
                        >
                        > > If large numbers of people go at conservation with good intentions,
                        > that will help a lot.
                        > >
                        >
                        >Absolutely. Curiously though, if not-so-large numbers of people conserve
                        >you run the risk of encountering "Jevons Paradox" where the conservation
                        >merely feeds the machine and makes the problem worse. Stated one way it
                        >is "as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a
                        >resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase,
                        >rather than decrease."
                        >
                        >One explanation runs thusly: If you are a warehouse owner interested in
                        >conservation, you might install skylights in your warehouse and thereby
                        >reduce your electricity use by $1000 a month. Great, but now you have
                        >$1000 available every month (once you've finished paying for the loan
                        >used to install the skylights anyway). You might reinvest that money in
                        >the company, perhaps to hire another employee or train your workers to
                        >work more effectively, thereby increasing the amount of business you do,
                        >ultimately shipping more goods. Of course, that increases your fuel
                        >requirements. The $1000 you 'saved' in electricity goes back into the
                        >system and eventually ends up consuming more energy somewhere. Perhaps
                        >you should just save that money for a rainy day instead? You put it
                        >safely in the bank. And the bank promptly lends it out to other business
                        >owners, not just once, but several times over, effectively multiplying
                        >the consumptive power of the money.
                        >
                        >Our economy is as a giant machine. It consumes energy and raw materials
                        >to create trash and smiles. Anything you do to make it more efficient
                        >just makes it run faster, consuming more energy and raw materials,
                        >producing more trash and smiles. You can even feed the trash back into
                        >it by burning it, recycling it, thermal depolymerizing it or composting
                        >it into fields for fertilizer. Now the machine goes even faster and just
                        >makes smiles. That's great, everybody likes smiles, but eventually you
                        >realize that you'll eventually run out of energy or raw materials or
                        >that the machine has outgrown the planet and that you'll have to find
                        >somewhere else to get smiles.
                        >
                        >It's not quite that bad of course, but the simile serves to illustrate
                        >the point. If we'd all just slow down and find something else to smile
                        >about it would all be peaches and cream. But then how many successful
                        >ideas have you seen that start with "If we'd all just...."?
                        >
                        >I don't mean to imply that there are no solutions or that conservation
                        >is not the answer. You just have to understand that partial or
                        >incomplete solutions will fail and may make things worse. Good
                        >intentions alone are not sufficient, one must also have a clear and
                        >correct map, to ensure that one is paving the correct road.
                        >
                        >CS
                        >--
                        >"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M.
                        >King Hubbert
                      • McGalliard, Frederick B
                        Quotations from Codesuidae It is difficult to conserve when living in a society of conspicuous consumption, but I m working on it, in the ways that I can fit
                        Message 11 of 27 , Feb 22, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Quotations from Codesuidae
                          "It is difficult to conserve when living in a society of conspicuous
                          consumption, but I'm working on it, in the ways that I can fit into the
                          financial realities of my life."
                           
                          See, that is really the difficult thing. How do you justify eating fresh corn in season and canned corn the rest of the time, when it is cheaper to buy fresh corn in season from south America when it is out of season here. (This is meant to be a single example of the overall issue). The problem is not conspicuous consumption, or wasteful squandering of resources, but that some brilliant marketers have found ways to bring us products that are better, cheaper, and more available, by using a lot of our cheap energy to do it. You could, and I have at times, argue that we should make energy, from fossil fuels at least, much more expensive by fiat (usually taxes, but could also be well head charges for US oil at least).
                           
                          "Cheap fuel creates the conditions that lead to crowded, crime-ridden
                          cities. Does it make sense that applying more cheap fuel is the best
                          solution to the problem?"
                           
                          ?????
                          Why would cheap fuel "create" crowded crime ridden cities? Cheap fuel means people can afford to drive, not just millionaires. It means freedom to live better for the poor, not just more for the rich. I would look to examples of communities where fuel is much more expensive compared to the average wage to see how this works in fact. I think your suggested relationship is unlikely based on the examples I can think of. Would you care to expound on why this relation is valid in your view?


                           


                          From:  [mailto:codesuidae@...]
                          Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:28 PM
                          To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Researchers upgrade ethanol production

                          McGalliard, Frederick B wrote:

                          >
                          > I would challenge you to take
                          out your ideas of "our wasteful
                          > lifestyle" and figure out what is
                          actually practical,

                          > Our workers commute large distances so they can
                          live in less crowded
                          > and less crime ridden conditions in the suburbs,
                          and still work.

                          Cheap fuel creates the conditions that lead to crowded, crime-ridden
                          cities. Does it make sense that applying more cheap fuel is the best
                          solution to the problem?

                          > I think you will find, on close
                          examination, that it is really quite
                          > difficult to reduce the fuel demand
                          without making major changes to a
                          > number of aspects of life as we know
                          it.

                          You are correct, our lifestyles must change. This is why I find it so
                          frustrating that people expect to simply start filling their SUV's with
                          ethanol so they can continue their daily trips to Starbucks in the Super
                          Ultra Mega Mart. They fail to comprehend the enormous amount of energy
                          contained in the cubic miles of fossil fuels we extract each year. We
                          can't just switch to ethanol/biodiesel/ electric and keep on driving, we
                          simply cannot reasonably collect sufficient energy to continue doing
                          what we are doing.

                          The only solutions to this problem are difficult and unpopular (at least
                          for now). But I think that maybe, just maybe, the American people are
                          ready for and could meet the challenge, given the right leadership.

                          CS
                          > ------------ --------- ---- *From:*
                          Codesuidae
                          >
                          > ... Our wasteful lifestyle and continuously expanding
                          appetite for
                          >
                          energy

                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.