Hi, Although I agree that the US doesn't seem to be making much headway towards improvements in the energy situation, I think you are too pessimistic relative to the 'way out.'
I believe the means are available. It is just a matter of bringing attention to the problem. Of having the political will at the top, and of having awareness of the problem in the population. I really don't think the average person has gotten the message that there is a problem. Maybe they have been told too many lies through the ages and they say, 'but, the cost is the same.' They won't believe it until the cost of NG, or oil, or electricity, or whatever goes up. I sincerely don't believe the common man perceives a problem when he can get gasoline for a little more than a dollar a gallon. So...it is more comfortable and convenient to drive a large vehicle...and he does. Jimmy Carter was able to turn the US around towards Solar and so forth during his administration when we had that fuel crisis. Then, the crisis went away, and so did the changes that had been implemented. If the awareness is there, we can have the put out the bonfire mentality and go for it, probably successfully, although it isn't the best way to correct a problem. When the US was focused on going to the moon by Kennedy, they got down to work and they did it. It is a matter of focus and political will. I also feel that the answer to the energy 'problem' is right here on this biofuels list and the discussions of various biofuels. First, conservation. There is a tremendous amount of energy savings available through conservation with relatively little impact on US quality of life. Some are already in use in the country and just need to be expanded. Others are already in use in other countries and just need to be borrowed. Flourescent lighting, compact flourescents as retrofits, LED lighting, better insulation of buildings, co- gen projects, etc. On the energy supply side, we can substitute biodiesel, SVO/WVO into diesel engines, both stationary and in transport applications. Ethanol can be used in spark ignition engines. Space heating is a huge energy user and I see corn burning and other biomass burning as a big solution to this problem. See http://burncorn.net/ I really don't see any need for space heating to come from any other source than the burning of waste biomass or renewables such as corn. Wind and solar can be expanded. The means are available. The will is not. I think the people are getting the message, albeit slowly. I think that there will be change to a more sustainable future regardless of what the political industrial complex want. The word of a better way is getting out...through the Internet, etc. There is a basic ground swell of change in progress that eventually the politicians will need to answer to. One thing I see as essential will be a lowering of the cost of alternative energies. I know it is often discussed that it would be advantageous to raise the cost of fossil energy to the level of alternatives to make the alternatives more attractive. My fear along these lines is that as the price of crude goes up, fields that currently are not economically viable, or are too environmentally sensitive, will become economically and politically viable. We might see a lot more environmental destruction as areas are exploited that currently wouldn't be acceptable. So...I would like to see the price of energy go up to encourage savings as mentioned in the first paragraph, but am concerned that if this is too great, we could see accelerated and more wanton destruction of the environment in the pursuit of fossil fuels. Hopefully the cost of alternatives will cap the cost in such a way that they cost of fossil fuels will not go to a level that these hard to exploit fields will be opened. Derek > > Hi Robert, > > US have both capacity and shown in the past that things can happen quickly, > but this time it will be very difficult. It would need a regime change and > not only that, the new regime would need to understand what has to be done. > It is too serious to be subject to the normal lobbying, corporate and > political interests. I am not that optimistic about US, at least not > without very serious harm have been done to US and the world. This is maybe > the most serious draw back of democracies. It is difficult to get painful > cures in place and people are often told that the problems are less than > they are. > > I think that you are right, it need fundamental changes and the signs are > not good. It is many things that can be done better, but the search for a > golden bullet is very damaging. US starts to be a victim of its own > propaganda. I said once on the list that US was a technology leader, > without thinking too much, I am also in some instances falling for it. The > list immediately and rightfully corrected me, US is not a leader in > innovations and has never been. The danger is that the world might rely on > US to find the golden bullet to energy crises. I belive like you, that it > will be a lot of bullets flying around, but not of the golden type. Any > kind of energy solutions must be easy and world inclusive, simple, > repeatable and available for all. That is why I am somewhat skeptical to > hydrogen and cannot see a fit. > > My description of the likely route of US, coal and nuclear, did in any way > meant that I recommended it. On the contrary, US will in this process hurt > the whole world and maybe most of the 4% that lives in US also. Maybe a > massive cloning of Keith is a necessary action. -:)) > > Seriously, the promotion and spreading of information is the most valuable > direct action that all of us can participate in. Sometimes I am accused of > being too heavy, cannot understand why. LOL > > Hakan > > > At 04:41 27/12/2003, you wrote: > > > >Hakan Falk wrote: > > > > > FAST DEVELOPMENT OF COAL AND NUCLEAR. > > > > > > This is also a high stake poker game, but would give US much more time > > > than > > > any oil route. > > > > A lot of intelligent people advocate this approach. Personally, it > >makes me feel uneasy and it doesn't really address the fundamental > >problem of flagrant energy wastage we've discussed at length in this > >forum. This afternoon on a trip to Seattle, I shook my head at the > >sheer number of massive, large displacement vehicles occupied by single > >drivers on the roads in my country. We sat in traffic for long periods > >of time with engines idling. (All because my mother sent a huge can of > >popcorn to us from Witchita, Kansas that Fed Ex wouldn't deliver across > >the border. . . Had I known what it was, I would have told Fed Ex to > >send it back!) > > > > There is simply too much traffic. Our vehicles are larger than they > >often need to be. Goods are transported over vast distances on the > >highway. (Do we really need popcorn from Kansas???) All of this > >contributes to pollution and resource depletion. > > > > We need a fundamental societal restructuring. If we do not > >drastically cut our energy use and change the paradigm upon which our > >culture functions, we are in for BIG trouble in the not too distant > >future. Once the cheap energy system upon which our society is > >predicated begins to crumble, an economic disaster will follow. This is > >already happening with natural gas. (Our bill this last month was $38 > >higher than the bill for the same month last year, and we live in a new, > >very well insulated house!) My father in law and I have argued this for > >a long time, and now that the evidence is slanting in my favor, he's > >STILL in denial! (By the way, HIS natural gas bill was $100 higher than > >last year's bill, and my mother in law thinks something is wrong with > >her brand new furnace!) > > > > > We already know that US electricity production could be covered this > > > century by coal > > > > Once we let that djinni out of the bottle, the r/p values for coal > >will decline rapidly. Open pit coal mining is also quite damaging to > >the environment. On September 1, 1999 NPR had a feature on coal mining > >in the Virginia that is seriously ruining property and homes. > > > > > and nuclear and if it also could cover transportation, it would also > > > give a > > > degree of oil independence. > > > > I have read about a few companies that are working on fuel synthesis > >from "sequestered" carbon dioxide and hydrogen derived from steam. This > >process requires significant heat, which can be supplied by nuclear or > >concentrated solar energy. > > > > Of all the solar related technologies out there right now, I'm most > >enthusiastic about concentrated solar for heat because it represents > >"ready to use" technology, and much of what we actually use energy to do > >for us relates directly to our need for heat; either in domestic or > >industrial processes. > > > > > > > HYDROGEN > > > > > > It will not be produced cleanly, so legal obstacles like "clean air > > > act" > > > etc. must be softened enough to allow it. The sacrifices in human > > > lifes. > > > must also be swept under the carpet. It is however some clear problems > > > > > > around it and that is to produce safe and affordable vehicles for > > > hydrogen. > > > The jury is still out on the possibilities for this to happen. > > > > I'm convinced that "solar hydrogen" has a place, provided that two > >things occur. First, we must have VERY CHEAP electricity--the kind that > >can be obtained with concentrated photovoltaics in high insolation > >areas. Secondly, it should only be used as a carrier to extend the > >range of hybrid electrics. Serious exergy issues mitigate against > >electrolytic hydrogen, and its low density cripples any application > >beyond local use. But in certain circumstances I can envision hydrogen > >as a viable energy carrier. > > > > Also, there are many ways to produce hydrogen. Electrolysis is > >probably the easiest. However, it's probably not the smartest. . . > > > > > The same goes for the acceptance of energy conservation. The also have > > > the benefits of that a commitment to cleaner environment have popular > > > support, at the same time as it helps the alternative non fossil > > > biofuel/wind/solar economy. > > > > > > > I wish I could share the optimism you and Keith have expressed about > >this. Listening to many of my countrymen speak on these issues, I'm > >convinced that the "all American solution" to this problem will involve > >more bombing and bloodshed. > > > > However, I saw a bumper sticker today that read: "Support regime > >change in America. Vote!" > > > > > >robert luis rabello > >"The Edge of Justice" > >Adventure for Your Mind > ><http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782>http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
