Randi talking about renewable fuel and no oil

[blues90]

Yes this would be great however this is not something that can happen overnight . I look at all the cars on the road now days and with the economy we have now how on earth would most people afford to replace a car or have on converted to flex fuel ?

I have the hope that a good mass transit system would have been in place by now to cut way down of the auto even mass transit that would reach into far out areas .

I felt it would be easy , we already have roads to set rails on to save alot of the cost , here in LA Calif , they had this grand idea of a underground rail system which cost far too much and took far too long when we have freeways with more than enough lanes to use .

Bio fuel is one way and it does take energy to produce anything .

[LSK]

1. check out the environmental forum

There is a discussion on plug-in hybrids.

A lot of people have a commute thats under 100 miles which can be handled by an electric car thats plugged in every night.

[Nutmegger]

2. Is she finished?

Or will she pick up on this after the break?

[JackBeck]

4. The whole show has been dedicated to these programs.

So I would assume she will be continuing the discussion.

[LSK]

5. shes been on this track all day

She started with the Saudi/Cheney meeting regarding the Sunnis and has come to lets just stop fighting for oil.

[Nutmegger]

7. Thank you very much!

:hi:

[lapfog_1]

3. Brazil has done it.

And without a major disruption to their economy.

[valerief]

13. They must have used voodoo or something, because everyone

says it can't be done in Murka.

:sarcasm:

[trekbiker]

18. Brazil is a unique case. Giant sugar crops and nowhere

near as much oil consumption as the US. Sugarcane is also ideal for making ethanol, plus they can control the sugar prices better that way, if sugar commodity prices are low they divert more of thier crop into ethanol

[bridgit]

6. i keep say'n it's the wave of the future, so climb on board...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x9724

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2904881&mesg_id=2904881

it's so hard to bust through the din :shrug: Go Randi!! :bounce:

[Joe for Clark]

8. The whole argument is crap.

There is NO WAY the US can use "bio fuels" to gas up our cars. We don't have enough farm lands to do it. We aren't giving up our cars, and to the extent we try to use food sources to fuel our cars, we take that much food stock out of our world society.

IT CAN BE DONE - I know. I don't think so, I know.

We have to shift to synthetic fuels for a short time - time to reengineer our society to run on reproducable - probably hydrogen based fuels. Maybe thats 10 years - we just have to find a way to get to that point.

I live in LA too.

Joe

[LSK]

9. nobody is saying it has to be done ENTIRELY with biofuels

But it can be PART of the solution.

[Joe for Clark]

10. It shouldn't be.

If we build a plant to produce a fuel - why do we then have to produce another plant to produce another fuel that uses product that has a food use??

Joe

[LSK]

12. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x75045

[Joe for Clark]

14. I am too familiar with that stuff.

If we put every single acre availiable into use to produce fuel - we might be able to produce 1/10th our actual need for the replacement of gasoline - thats it.

In 1984 terms, we had a 1000 year supply of fuel in the shale beds of the US.

Those are facts.

The technology to turn that shale into gasoline is not very sophisticated. The germans used it agaisnst us from 1942 to the end of the war.

It is a large capital investment either way - where do your put your money??

And by the way - I think Gore is right generally - we better have a clean energy source pretty soon.
And one that we control and can count on.

Joe

[johnaries]

17. Switchgrass is not a food crop. It uses prairie land not farm land.

It doesn't have to bee re-seeded every year. It also has a high output as an energy source.

Not the total solution, no - but a part of it.

[Joe for Clark]

22. We can only build so many plants - and we have to make a

decision as a society which way we go. Capital is limited.

You know what I want? - I don't want another dime of our money going to the middle east. I know we can do a lot better. I think we have way too many people underemployed in our country. And I understand velocity of a dollar.

I really believe in my heart - this society is built on a middle class - that the average student graduating from the average high school has the RIGHT to an average standard of living in the average city. ANd right now, their future is being sold for T-Bills to countries in the middle east that would just assume kill them.

It is just wrong. And we surely have another way to go. That is where I am coming from.

Joe

[lapfog_1]

15. Bullshit.

It can be done without any crop land being used. And the cost is something like $300 Billion. And it replaces all of the oil used for transportation in the US.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

some algae in the NREL study can produce 10,000 gal/acre/year of vegetable oil. Compare to corn at 48 gal/acre/year.

All we need to do is develop the will to do it.

[Joe for Clark]

16. Algae, huh?

You know how many cars and trucks operate on our highways every day?? - Hell of a lot of algae isn't it??

Before dad ran the oil company he worked at the university. He said something to me a long time ago that has proven true. Those that can do do, those that can't teach.

He has been proven right all my life.

This should be looked at - Reagan disbanded it in 1981 - Carter formed it - and it was smart.
It was called the US Synthetic Fuels Corporation. It was in response to that last emargo. And I know the oil companies at the time took it very seriously.

It should be revisited now.

Joe

[lapfog_1]

20. Obviously you didn't read the study.

And BTW, pure research science comes out of universities. Research that produced almost ALL of the code now used to run the internet (and the very idea of the internet). Funded by our federal government (ARPA). I know, I was one of the early research scientists writing code for it. So the old saw about those that can do and those that can't teach is just such a crock of shit (I've done both, and been successful at both).
And my family has been in oil as well (My uncles were both VP of oil companies, and my father in law was executive VP at one of the world's largest - he had his own Gulfstream executive jet to fly around).

Read the study.

Syn fuels takes us right back to the same problems. You are still burning fossil fuels and producing more CO2, and we can't do that anymore. And if you want syn fuels, you are much better off economically with the tar sands of Canada, not the oil shale of the Western US.

[Joe for Clark]

24. I read it - why do you think it is so new??/

You don't think this was considered???

Take two steps back and a deep breath.

Joe

[lapfog_1]

26. Quoting you..."Hell of a lot of algae isn't it??"

so I naturally assumed that you didn't read it.

Having read it, your only come back now is that it isn't NEW? (it was revised as late as 2004, btw) and the research was conducted in the 80's and 90's and wasn't aimed at producing vegetable oil at all.

there are just now a number of large investments in this area.

Bio-diesel itself is just coming out of the garage/tinkerer phase. Algae grown feedstock is just getting started.

But "hell of a lot of algae"? Not compared to any other biofuel alternative.

[Joe for Clark]

28. You know, when money is involved you look at every possibility.

That it is now new - it was lookd at in 73, 79 and up to at least 1984.

The numbers just don't work. We can't do it with corn stocks, but somehow, magically we can do it with algae??

Biofuels fail on their face to address the issue - it is just the way it is.

And I don't think so, I know so - it is different.

Joe

[lapfog_1]

29. You know so..

so GLAD that's cleared up, I won't even think about it anymore, based on you KNOWING so.

Corn produces 49 gal/acre/year of vegetable oil, Oil palm produces over 600 gal/acre/year. Algae is at 10,000 gal/acre/year. And those are facts. Algae takes less energy to "farm" (aquaculture), and can use some really horrible water to grow in, including salt water.

With biofuels, it's all about energy in + density.

[Joe for Clark]

31. Then don't think about it.

I am an opinionate a-hole - I know I am.

I think it is funny in a way - what do you know that capital interests don't??

If there was money in it - why don't they do it??

I was in my last year of college in 1979 - took me some time to understand it back then myself.

Joe

[lapfog_1]

32. At least you recognize that you are an a-hole...

now if you would go one step further and recognize that you are an uninformed opinionate a-hole.

I don't know more than the "capital interests". I know that this is still high risk high opportunity. I've dealt with the folks on sandhill road for many years (and other capital markets) and I know they are reluctant to invest. However, there are many who are investing... here is a partial list of those investments:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Biodiesel_from_Algae_Oil

Profitability is something that changes over time. Of course, if we were to charge the true cost on fossil fuels (that is to say not only the cost of production and distribution, but the total cost to cleanup after it is used, which would now imply the cost of sequestration of the CO2 and methane produced), we might have found that bio fuels of many different types were competitive a long time ago. But we don't charge for it, and we will pay later (actually I think we are paying now, including the cost of an unneeded war in Iraq).
In any case, it's now pretty well recognized that we are running out of cheap oil, and with increased demand for energy, there is no one predicting that oil will return to $17 or even $30 a barrel.

Everything is relative. The cost now to produce a barrel of vegetable oil from algae might well be less than the cost of pumping and transporting a barrel of oil from the ground. I'm sure the money folks are figuring this out. Also, investing in something unproven or long term has been the responsibility of the government, not private industry. Private capital markets did not build the internet, nor the protocols used therein. They did not fund the development of nuclear technology, either. Almost any new field of endeavor is first funded by research money in the form of military or educational institutions funded by state and federal government. So saying something like "if there was money in it, corporations would be all over it" is not only wrong, but incredibly ignorant of almost everything we use as technology today.

So the "If there was money in it - why don't they do it?" is a similar to the hokum of "those that can do and those that can't teach". Besides, they are doing it.

[Joe for Clark]

33. I know I am an opinionated SOB.

I earned it the hard way.

I can put it in these terms I suppose - the total output of the Santa Fe ops (maybe a quarter of the needed output for LA) would cost about 65 billion dollars to restructure for incoming syntehtic product. Create the infrastructure to do that.

That is the cheapest way to produce it too.

I did convert 85 dollars to 06 dollars in this - but you can understand - It is greater than the combined capitalization of all little energy startups combined - it is a lot of money!!

And if they bet wrong, most companies would fold. It is a price-volume concept. There has to be enough volume to support the capital outlay. ANd the bet has to be made largely on world oil prices for the next 5 or more years.

This is the problem.

Joe

[LSK]

19. I was thinking we could also have electric cars....

[lapfog_1]

25. Electricity and Hydrogen are both energy transfer agents or

energy storage agents. They are not energy production agents. You have to generate electricity somehow, usually by burning fossil fuels, same for hydrogen. Of course, you can produce both from other sources, like hydro power. Electric cars are a fine idea, fuel cell or some super battery that provides the stored energy. However, there are a number of problems... the capacity of the storage medium, the cost of such storage systems, and the conversion of stored energy to heat and mechanical energy can use esoteric and sometimes rare element devices (some of which will pollute when the fuel cell or battery is discarded).
Not to mention the enormous length of time it takes to convert to electric and the cost of supporting infrastructure. And you still have to generate the power somehow (and if it's burn fossil fuel, then you are back to where you started).

Biofuels don't contribute to global warming and we can mostly use the same engine and fueling technology we already have.

[LSK]

30. several things going for electric cars as part of the solution

1. They can be used as commuter vehicles (trips less than 100 miles) and recharged in homes overnight. I dont know how close the technology is but is it a stretch that you just plug your car in an outlet in the garage everynight and its ready for the commute in the morning?

2. If condition one is possible, then we already have the infrastructure in place. There would be no need to refueling stations to be created to accomodate biofuels or hydrogen or whatever else. It would just use the power grid much like your TV does.

3. Electrical power plants do not have to be fossil fuel supplied. Living in the NW suburban Chicago suburbs, I know that most of my electricity comes from Nuclear plants. The pros and cons of Nuclear plants is for another discussion.

4. Electric cars do not have to totally solve the problem, but they would work great for a lot of people who spend an hour idling in a traffic jam every day on the way to work.

[amandabeech]

23. It takes a lot of energy to create pure hydrogen.

It is usually bound up tight with oxygen or carbon.

There are some lab results indicating that special solar cells could use sunlight and water to make hydrogen and oxygen. The tech has not been tested on even a pilot plant basis, so it is unclear the degree to which it would hold up in real life conditions or how it could be scaled up.

Hydrogen is also difficult to store and transport. It has a tendency to leak through metal and make it brittle.

Check out the Environment and Energy Forum. Lots of good info and debate there.

[depakid]

27. "We aren't giving up our cars." ....Au contraire

You and tens of millions of others certainly will be- and sooner than you think. What a nightmare LA's going to be with $8 to $10 per gallon gas. Having lived there on and off for many years- I don't see how many folks are going to get by. I foresee an exodus, and hopefully not to Oregon.

[blues90]

11. There have been flex fuel cars in the US for years

I know , I worked for ford dealerships for 30 years . Not one customer was even aware their car could use anything other than gasoline .

Beside what about water , where is the land and water going to come from to grow whatever is needed for bio fuels . Sure there may be the few who drive a bus that runs on old Mc'D's grease but this is few , if this became the new fuel it would run out very soon .

I have read many times water will be a problem well before the oil runs out .

I tend to think we are dreamers with alot of hope but things take alot more time to produce than ideas pop into ones head .

I don't know if we will ever solve the energy issues before global warming does us in . At least not in my lifetime it won't .

What a waste people have created by being so ignorent all these years . It just continues to grow . I recall a time where there was at most 2 cars per family and most had one , now kids in high school drive to school . I think everything becomes abused over time .

[IDemo]

21. What needs to be looked at

is how many millions climb into their vehicles to fight traffic, only to arrive in their 8x10 cubicles to sit in front of a computer and a telephone to do their job....the same environment they doubtlessly left behind in the den/computer room.

It would be orders of magnitude cheaper, easier, and more fuel saving, getting such people to telecommute efficiently, even if only for three of five days a week.