Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: bush is going to "shock" us

  1. #1
    God/dess greenidlady1's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts

    Default bush is going to "shock" us

    I read a couple of days ago that Bush plans to cut out oil usage almost completely. And he has new energy resources that will shock us. What do you think of this?

  2. #2
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    I think it's a bunch of running off at the mouth.

  3. #3
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,354
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 57 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    I doubt much will happen before his term is up- he's just trying to have some damage control for all the other stuff he's been doing.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    Trying to stay on the economic side of this issue, it would appear that GWB is trying to walk a tightrope. On the one hand, America can (eventually) substitute a fair amount of nuclear, solar, wind energy etc. for 'fixed position' energy needs. However, if ALL of the dollars are counted and ALL of the subsidies identified only nuclear is actually cost competitive. And in any case, unless the permitting process is streamlined it will take years and years to bring these new power sources online even if the projects are started tomorrow.

    'Moving' energy needs are a different story. Lithium batteries offer a lot of theoretical promise for electric cars (and better hybrid cars), but years of research are needed and the issue of generating 1000 times as many heavy metals from dead batteries has not been considered. Hydrogen catches a lot of press, but when you add up the numbers and the dollars the hydrogen cycle is less energy efficient overall and basically relocates pollution away from the car's tailpipe to the natural gas hydrogen plant or coal fired generating station in somebody else's backyard rather than eliminating it.

    Ethanol is another area where the true cost-competitiveness is disguised by farm subsidies, and where the total energy equation is negative if you count up the energy needed to produce the pesticides and fertilizers necessary for high productivity corn farming.

    In the short run, there simply isn't any way around the fact that if American life is going to continue as we know it, huge amounts of oil are going to be needed. GWB has tried once and failed to accelerate development of 'conventional' American oil reserves i.e. ANWR and offshore drilling on both coasts. GWB did manage to be successful putting together a new gas pipeline deal to bring Alaskan gas down to the 'lower 48'. There is a fair amount of development going on to try and get the economics to work for Fischer-Tropsch conversion of coal to oil, to get the extraction costs down on recovering oil from tar sands and oil shale.

    But all in all, in the short term at least, there simply no escaping the fact that middle eastern oil wells need to keep pumping and that oil tankers need to keep sailing if American businesses are going to stay profitable and if American cars and trucks are going to keep taking people to work and bringing groceries and other goods to suburban shopping malls. GWB is doing what has to be done in this area as well, which is the reason we have 120,000 soldiers and 4 aircraft carriers within a couple of hundred miles of mideastern oil fields !

    So to answer your question, I think GWB's announcements about research efforts, the ethanol program, etc. are theoretical wishful thinking combined with political reality, whereas GWB's efforts in the middle east are economic reality which is politically incorrect to discuss.

  5. #5
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    I think alternative and cleaner energies are going to become more in vogue.

    Last night I was watching Alan Alda's Science Frontiers and they had a story about using algea to clean power plant emissions. If they can centralize (consider it "consolidation") all the pollution at one point - power plants instead of car tail pipes - it probably will be more economically feasible for cleaner energy.

    People realize they are funding terrorism at the pump and that people are dying over the fuel we use. Something has to be done, but an entire economy fed off of dinosaur fossils doesn't turn on a dime and some leadership needs to be taken. There are a lot of people saying "We want some fucking alternatives" but what are you going to do? There are no ethynol stations, no nothing. Trapped.

    There are a lot of ideas, but rarely are they taken into consideration.

    But I do know one thing, we can't be dependent on a bunch of bomb throwing throat cutting flag burning crazies anymore. We need to make this a "post 9-11" economy.

    I know changes in the economy have already made me reduce my lifestyle expectations. Then again, I live on what I earn - I carry no debt longer than 20 days.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    There are no ethynol stations, no nothing
    Actually, there are a few ...

    What you don't see behind those ethanol stations are all of the chemical plants using oil and huge amounts of energy to produce fertilizer and pesticides, farmers using large amounts of diesel fuel and energy to plant, harvest and dry the corn, and refineries using yet more energy to distill the ethanol. If you add up all of these energy components, every gallon of ethanol produced actually consumes more oil / energy to produce than it provides / replaces - in other words there would be less total energy consumption and less total pollution if we simply cut out the 'middle-man' and kept burning gasoline.

    Of course, the REAL issue with ethanol is gov't subsidies to US farmers and refiners, paid for with good ol' tax money - a disproportionate amount of which is collected in 'blue' states and paid out in 'red' states !

    And speaking of 'blue states', the EPA recently bowed to the true scientific results of exhaust emission studies which showed that the Ethanol and other oxygen boosters mandated for use in gasoline near metropolitan areas was actually producing more pollution than pure gasoline (although the pollution was taking different forms). As a result, the EPA recently removed their mandate ...



    As with most 'politically correct' technologies, it's extremely difficult to get a true picture of all aspects of a particular proposal, because their is a political motivation to understate 'hidden' costs, to overstate potential benefits, and to sweep negative side effects under the proverbial rug.

    But I do know one thing, we can't be dependent on a bunch of bomb throwing throat cutting flag burning crazies anymore. We need to make this a "post 9-11" economy.
    Are you saying that we need to let US industries operate under the same restrictions (or lack thereof) that 'global' industries are able to operate, and pay their workers 'global' pay rates ? Are you saying that the US gov't simply ration gasoline / heating oil, and limit the available supply to the amount produced in North America without importing any oil from the middle east ? Are you saying we should waive the years worth of studies, hearings, local gov't protests etc. and allow ground to be broken tomorrow for a new coal fired power plant in your back yard ?

    In truth, there's only one way for America to cut oil consumption by 25% in the short term given today's proven technologies - put an end to suburban life, single family houses, commuting to work, strip malls etc. When faced with a bald-faced choice of moving to a big city apartment building, versus keeping their suburban house at the 'cost' of the lives of 1000 US soldiers per year in the middle east, guess which way the majority of Americans are going to vote ...
    ~
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-26-2006 at 05:37 AM.

  7. #7
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    Quote Originally Posted by greenidlady1
    I read a couple of days ago that Bush plans to cut out oil usage almost completely. And he has new energy resources that will shock us. What do you think of this?
    This is most likely an urban legend like the one about the cars that get 150 miles/gallon.
    There are scads of bogus "facts" on alternatives to gasoline to move vehicles, many of them involving ethanol and methanol. Many of them ignore reality and drift into a world of fantasy. I am neither a rabid opponent or proponent of these alternatives, but here are corrections of some of the "facts".
    1) "It takes more energy to make ethanol than you get out of it". This may be true on a mechanical energy basis but is irrelevant--all conversions of one form of energy to another produce losses--the very electricity that runs your computer takes 3 BTU of fuels to produce 1 BTU of electricity, but I like being able to turn on the light switch and getting light, and not having to have a literal "icebox" instead of the electric motor driven refrigerator and am willing to pay for this "loss".
    Corollary to #1--You can eliminate the net K/cal loss and ethanol is still a loser in dollars. Thesingle most often cited work on this is
    David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek
    http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers...hanol.2005.pdf
    Look at table 2--the evaluation of net energy inputs to making ethanol. 38.5% of the "energy input" is steam and water. But you can get steam as a byproduct of electricity production for almost no energy input by putting the ethanol plant right on the grounds of a power plant, and if by magic the "ethanol loses energy" argument goes away. BUT IT STILL MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE--because it saves 5% of the COST of making ethanol and it still requires government mandates and massive subsidies to make ethanol. That is why no one does it- cause it makes no sense.
    Similar tripe is invented about methanol (aka wood alcohol), such as it would only cost $100 to make your car run it--BS. If evey car sold tomorrow was flex fuel it would take 20 years to convert all the vehicles on the road at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
    A far simpler solution is to stop putting a tarrif on imported ethanol made from sugar which is a far more efficient route to ethanol since it is sugar->alcohol, and stop subsidizing the destructon of food (corn) to make it. But we would have to import that you say! YES, but if we are wasting corn to make ethanol, we are not EXporting it to feed hungry people. The mantra of anti-western zealots in the 3rd world becomes "They ground up my dinner to drive their SUV's." Plus your dinner ends up costing more as feed costs for chickens and cattle rise.
    Now if you really buy the "net energy inefficiency" argument consider this--food is the LEAST efficient kcal-kcal conversion you can dream of. We grow corn, feed animals, deliver it to stores, COOK it, then 50% of the energy in it comes out the recta of 6.5 billion people. I for one would rather not starve for a "more energy-efficient" system.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    744
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    I don't think he has a clue or a plan and that the economy and energy problems looming will run on benign neglect like most of his other domestic programs. On the positive side, if you are right, he deserves the hero of america award if he truly has a plan and viable alternatives to petroleum energy for our ground transit. My cavett is that the "secret Bush plan" must be viable, (not just talk like he always does), quickly able to be implemented, an show lasting economic results. As I doubt that my three criteria will be met by out "Great Prevaricator" don't wait or hold your breath on this.

    As the Oil President, is a very late convert to hybrid and hydrogen, and wasn't real big on helping alchohol based fuel additives in 2001. The oil situation is now quite dire, for a variety of uncontrollable reasons, and it is now a national defense matter not just economic.

    I guess if he has a functioning fusion electric power plant, that can cheaply make liquid hyrodgen from water (not from natural gas), I would be both amazed and grateful and would vote for Bush III in the dynasty. He doesn't have such technology, or more to the point, we don't have such technology.

    I will stand by to be amaed and will then freely admit I am wrong. I'll even travel to the unveiling ceremony if there is one.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    As the Oil President, is a very late convert to hybrid and hydrogen, and wasn't real big on helping alchohol based fuel additives in 2001. The oil situation is now quite dire, for a variety of uncontrollable reasons, and it is now a national defense matter not just economic.
    Coming from the Oil Bidness himself, and with Dick Cheney plus innumerable 'think tanks' whispering in his ear, it is logical to assume that GWB was slow to embrace hybrid cars, hydrogen fuels, and ethanol because he immediately realized that the true economics of all of these 'stop-gap' technologies simply doesn't work without massive gov't subsidies. Hybrid cars have really only worked for Toyota and Honda because of massive subsidies from the Japanese gov't - plus a PR campaign which convinced 'politically correct American liberals' that they should pay extra for a hybrid - with a subsequent PR campaign which convinced 'politically correct' federal and state legislators that the rest of us Americans should pay higher taxes to subsidize a tax write-off for those 'politically correct American liberals' who do buy Japanese hybrids. Based on fundamentals only, both GWB and the US Automakers knew that hybrid cars couldn't stand on their own economic merits - but now both have been forced to reevaluate their position due to political pressure and the economics of tax subsidies.

    Hydrogen and corn ethanol are equally political subjects which, based on fundamentals only, also cannot stand on their own merits. 'Blue states' tend to like hydrogen since it exports tailpipe pollution to coal fired power plants and natural gas cracking plants in 'red states'. 'Red states' tend to like ethanol since it collects blue state tax money and redistributes that money in the form of 'red state' farm subsidies. However, neither option actually improves our energy dependence situation very much. You can be certain that GWB was aware of the 'fundamentals', but has now been forced to get involved in the politics (particularly the politics of ethanol) due to pressure from the press.

  10. #10
    Featured Member lunchbox's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2005
    Location
    falling from grace
    Posts
    1,943
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    Sorry, I've been abroad. Nothing Bush does these days can shock anyone.

    however, I did come across this before I went on vacation:
    http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtl...8-90b4c7a3ef71
    Independent replications of the Parallel Path technology appear to support Flynn Research’s claims. Testing and Finite Element Analysis show that the Parallel Path system indeed manages to not only increase the magnetic flux in the core by a factor of four over conventional electric motors, but manipulate the flux to act in the direction of motion, generating considerably more motive power than conventional motors.

  11. #11
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    Well, nuclear power is not clean. The pollution from that lives on for a good 10,000 years. A good chunk around Chernobyl is still a wasteland. Ain't no one going to convince me that nuclear power is a viable energy source unless it is going into space.

    At least with dino-fuel we can clean it up some - scrub carbon, cleanse carbon dioxide, etc. With more alternative fuels the cost of clean up is even less.

    Alternative energy storage devices like batteries and the like can help consolidate the dirty business of "dirty" conversions of x into energy into one place. This consolidation will make the clean up more viable and economically efficient. Which is cheaper and more efficient - forcing millions of people to build, distribute, and buy catalytic convertors or to change the storage of energy from liquid (gas) into electrical and scrub in one location?

    That said, the "post 9-11" economy needs to get off technology from 100 years ago. Well, OK, there have been some improvements. But the base is still burn dino's to make stuff.

    The argument about how much petro it will cost to make ethynol/biodiesel is a false one. There is no reason the farm equipment can't run off biodiesel to begin with. The source of this energy isn't from history - it is from today's sun converted into plant matter. Put a bit more thinking into it and I bet we can engineer some plants that store that energy more efficiently.

    The internet came from massive government subsidies until it could be commercialized - generating what can be argued a whole new economic system. The nuclear power industry comes from massive government subsidies. Hell, even the drug companies benefit from massive government subsidies. I think subsidies to make us more independent of people with very very odd ideas about freedom, a woman's place in the world, and what to die from is a good idea.

  12. #12
    Veteran Member azcustomer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    676
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: bush is going to "shock" us

    I think the noise being generated by the administration (shock!! GW says we're addicted to oil!!) is to lay the groundwork for major research funding in alternative energy. Finally.

    An example of sustainable clean energy is using solar energy to create hydrogen energy. Here in Phoenix, a guy who made out in the internet craze dayz has his house creating hydrogen from solar energy - he's completely off the grid. The technology he uses is photovoltaic, which is quite costly.

    A cheaper way which is being developed is using solar concentrators to thermally "crack" water into hydrogen. Shec Labs is a Canadian company which is developing catalysts to lower the temperature at which water can be "cracked".

    The idea is to create a closed loop system - that is, crack the water, then use the hydrogen to generate energy and convert it back into water. 80% of the world's population lives in or near climates perfect for solar concentrator plants.

    Why is this developed in Canada and not the United States? The Canadian government research programs are better funded and more accesible to the research community.

    A few interesting facts:
    The biggest user and exporter of PV solar cells is Germany. They have made alternative energy a significant part of their economy.
    Arizona and Nevada have no significant fed dollars coming to develop solar technology. It is going to thost states that lobby for it. (Thanks a lot, Mr. no pork McCain!)


    "Life is not about the number of breaths you take.
    It's about those moments which leave you breathless."

Similar Threads

  1. New Peaches- "Impeach My Bush"
    By Sienna_TX in forum Music Mix
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-11-2006, 10:45 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-17-2005, 09:50 PM
  3. FDR "The New Deal" & Bush
    By Tigerlilly in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-22-2005, 04:37 AM
  4. Conserv. "journalist"- Hypocrisy and the Bush Admin.
    By Tigerlilly in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2005, 01:31 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-07-2005, 07:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •