Quote from: jeff37923No, shitwit, I'm saying that instead of doing nothing to solve the root cause of the problem, we should be investing in research to solve the root cause. Conservation is not solving the problem, its dealing with the symptoms.

That's a backwards way of looking at it. It's like saying that a guy who eats four burgers and smokes a pack a day shouldn't stop, we should just invest in research for a cure, because his consumption isn't a problem, it's just a symptom.

Quote from: jeff37923You know, for someone who is so derisive of Science!, you sure as Hell don't seem to mind flapping your gums on one of the technological benefits of Science! Or are computers and the internet OK for the luddite crowd because it allows them to play street preacher?

I'm not derisive of the technology we have, I'm derisive of placing faith in future developments to solve the problems we have.

I wouldn't jump off a cliff hoping that I'll figure out how to fly before I hit the bottom. But I'd happily use a parachute if I had one.

I greatly admire stuff which has been proven to work well. I don't place my hopes in stuff that hasn't been invented, or has never been seen outside a lab. Being a believer in Science! means that you passively await future salvation by... something, you don't know what. It's that sort of attitude that got everyone overexcited about "cold fusion". By awaiting miraculous new technologies, we're easily caught up by bullshit that doesn't work, and we delay real action which we could be taking now.

We could hope to figure out how to fly before we hit the ground, or we could just take a parachute. We have commercially-proven technology and methods we could be using now. We don't need any technological miracles.

Quote from: jeff37923This is a strawman arguement if I ever heard one. ALL energy sources eventually run out, its a matter of how long before they run out that counts.

In billions of years, yes.  I think that ought to be enough. I think we can reasonably be expected to plan, say, a century or so ahead - but not really billions of years.

Let's be serious, here.

Quote from: jeff37923Electric SUVs may not be as far off as you want to believe.

They may not be, or they may be. Who knows? Again we're talking faith. "Only wait, and believe, and you shall be saved!" Or we could just use what we've got today.

 

Quote from: jeff37923It would actually be easier and more feasable to grab an Earth-approaching comet or carbonaceous asteroid. Of course, that is the Science! driven response and would cause any good Green Movement conservationist to assume the foetal position sucking his thumb.

Or rather, would cause him to laugh his arse off.

When we actually do capture an asteroid and use its resources, let me know. Right now we're hard pressed just to build a space station within 20 years of its original planned completion date, and put people into space without blowing them up.

So, by all means start on the project of bringing asteroids to Earth to use their resources - without crashing them and destroying any cities, thanks - and let us know how it goes.

Quote from: jeff37923And actually, the scientists develop the theory while the engineers figure out a way to use it and then the technicians make the fucking thing work. Its a much more active and effective response than just weeping and wailing while watching your quality of life fade away.

Who's weeping and wailing? The only people doing that are the ones complaining about the fuel prices, and getting indignant at the suggestion to use less.

We have proven technology we can use today. We don't need anything new. New stuff would be great, let us know when it's working. But we don't actually need it. We just need to get our shit together. Waiting for some new technology isn't getting our shit together, it's just fucking about.

Other countries are doing it, moving towards using less fossil fuels. It's retarded countries like Australia and the US who are fucking about still in love with burning stuff.

In 1910 in an interview, old Thomas Edison said,
   "Some day some fellow will invent a way of concentrating and storing up sunshine to use instead of this old, absurd Prometheus scheme of fire. [...]

"When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy. Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property."

But he was just a commie hippy, old Edison, eh?

Paging Elliot Wilen!

You were right, I was wrong. I got the subsidy part confused because during the Clinton Administration, Al Gore fought long and hard to preserve ethanol subsidies. That was way before the Green Movement became fashionable, so mea culpa. My bad.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's a backwards way of looking at it. It's like saying that a guy who eats four burgers and smokes a pack a day shouldn't stop, we should just invest in research for a cure, because his consumption isn't a problem, it's just a symptom.

And this is a fundamental disagreement we have. You say that we have a problem with consumption while I say its a problem with resource management and utilization.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm not derisive of the technology we have, I'm derisive of placing faith in future developments to solve the problems we have.

I wouldn't jump off a cliff hoping that I'll figure out how to fly before I hit the bottom. But I'd happily use a parachute if I had one.

OK, you don't have faith in technological solutions. Yet, to use the cliff analogy, since the cliff is disappearing anyways and we will have to jump off it sooner or later, then why not start learning to fly now while there is still a cliff there?

Quote from: Kyle AaronI greatly admire stuff which has been proven to work well. I don't place my hopes in stuff that hasn't been invented, or has never been seen outside a lab. Being a believer in Science! means that you passively await future salvation by... something, you don't know what. It's that sort of attitude that got everyone overexcited about "cold fusion". By awaiting miraculous new technologies, we're easily caught up by bullshit that doesn't work, and we delay real action which we could be taking now.

I'm not saying wait for technological developments, that's your take on it. I'm advocating aggressively pursuing research and development so that those technological solutions can come about.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWe could hope to figure out how to fly before we hit the ground, or we could just take a parachute. We have commercially-proven technology and methods we could be using now. We don't need any technological miracles.

I haven't been advocating technological miracles, I've been advocating nuclear power - which is a known, mature, and safe technology if there ever was one. I've mentioned using algae for ethanol production, that sure as Hell isn't pie-in-the-sky thinking.

If you want to disparage my thinking on using space resources, go ahead. However, since we are indeed stuck on only one planet with finite resources, then looking at other worlds for resources is going to happen inevitably, unless you'd rather we embraced the slow racial suicide of being trapped on only one Earth. I push for exploiting space resources because it seems to be the best possible solution for not only solving the problem but developing new technologies to keep the problem from coming back.

Quote from: Kyle AaronLet's be serious, here.

Yes, lets.
What energy source will last longer using Earth-based resources? Oil, coal, or nuclear fission?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThey may not be, or they may be. Who knows? Again we're talking faith. "Only wait, and believe, and you shall be saved!" Or we could just use what we've got today.

We have the technology to mass produce electric or hybrid SUVs today. Where have you been?

 

Quote from: Kyle AaronOr rather, would cause him to laugh his arse off.

When we actually do capture an asteroid and use its resources, let me know. Right now we're hard pressed just to build a space station within 20 years of its original planned completion date, and put people into space without blowing them up.

So, by all means start on the project of bringing asteroids to Earth to use their resources - without crashing them and destroying any cities, thanks - and let us know how it goes.

Already being pursued, with help from the same Robert Zubrin that you've been reading. See, all large projects like this start small, but as long as they are not abandoned then we have a very good chance of succeeding.

Or maybe it be the Chinese who do it. Either way, it benefits the whole human race more than sitting on your ass wondering how much less you will have to make do with next year.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWe have proven technology we can use today. We don't need anything new. New stuff would be great, let us know when it's working. But we don't actually need it. We just need to get our shit together. Waiting for some new technology isn't getting our shit together, it's just fucking about.

Other countries are doing it, moving towards using less fossil fuels. It's retarded countries like Australia and the US who are fucking about still in love with burning stuff.

You are all over the fucking map here. First you deride Science! even though it is what has brought about the technology that you embrace in the above paragraphs. You have already stated that you have no faith in technological solutions. What in the fuck do you think one of the main things that basic research does? It helps invent and develop new technology, and all technology is unproven when it starts out. What, do you think that technology springs fully formed from the forehead of Zeus or something? Because your vision of Science! seems to have more in common with the Pulp Genre than with reality.

Quote from: jeff37923You are all over the fucking map here. First you deride Science! even though it is what has brought about the technology that you embrace in the above paragraphs. You have already stated that you have no faith in technological solutions. What in the fuck do you think one of the main things that basic research does? It helps invent and develop new technology, and all technology is unproven when it starts out. What, do you think that technology springs fully formed from the forehead of Zeus or something? Because your vision of Science! seems to have more in common with the Pulp Genre than with reality.

Jeff,
I want to share a story with you not particularly related to high gas prices but it is applicable to what you have been discussing.

When I was younger it was perfectly acceptable to drain spent oil from your car and dump it behind your garage. No moral stigma or anything. It was bad for the environment but that was not commonly known at that time. Then local ordinances started to come up that fined people for doing so. I was active with a number of groups and my friends in movements like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club bemoaned these initiatives because they were confident it would destroy the environment. Why? Because people were dumb, lazy and irresponsible. All this would do is line the pockets of local government or, in a worse case scenario, create Super Fund sites at the reclamation centers.

Then, some entrepreneur came up with an idea. He would offer a cheap fast oil change that included reclaiming the oil. Again, outrage because either the oil change business would line their pockets or, again, Super Fund sites. The oil changes up until then, were the domain of the car owner or, if feeble or rich, you would have your mechanic do it. With the oil change shops, you got reclamation and shortly, even more, you were having spent oil recycled.

This is an excellent example of a few points. First, if you listen to nay sayers, doom prophets and the like, you accomplish nothing. In fact, you quit before even trying. Second, it is amazing the solutions that can be found in responsible environmentalism. Third, conservation was not the answer this time (sometimes it is) but recycling was. More so, it was the part of the equation coupled with that laziness my ecotheist friends observed. I would much rather have someone else change my oil for a few extra bucks than do so myself, gather the oil and bring it to a reclamation center. Fourth, an industry was born that was friendly to the environment. I would also note that all of the above was done with application of existing tech. That is what engineers do, they solve problems with what they have against the stated goals.

I prefer looking at solutions and more so, positive alternatives. Telling people to move tot he tropics or freeze to death in a paralyzed fear devoid of any transportation since you SUV does not have gas in four years seems a bit negative.

Bill

Quote from: jeff37923My bad.

No, prob. I wonder if Gore's said anything about ethanol lately? Not that it really matters.

Quote from: HinterWeltJeff,
I want to share a story with you not particularly related to high gas prices but it is applicable to what you have been discussing.



I prefer looking at solutions and more so, positive alternatives. Telling people to move to the tropics or freeze to death in a paralyzed fear devoid of any transportation since you SUV does not have gas in four years seems a bit negative.

Bill

I wholly endorse that approach.

I'm a big proponent of science (or Science!), technology, the free market, and innovative solutions to problems. Ignoring possible alternatives limits the potential beneficial solutions to the problems we face. The oil problem is not unconquerable as long as we don't give up on solving the problem and accept the most convenient solution to it. I'll entertain that conservation may be part of the solution, but I doubt that it is the entire solution.

Here's a really stupid question that's probably been anwered.

Ethanol ATM is inefficient because it's made in a few places and trucked everywhere. Not counting the food shortage issues. What if there were plants all over to convert corn or switchgrass or sugar cane to ethanol - say 3 or 4 per state - and those plants served the state it's in? Would that make it work better? Or am I missing something entirely?

Edit : And lets assume we could build the infrastucture without any problems.

Quote from: shewolfHere's a really stupid question that's probably been anwered.

Ethanol ATM is inefficient because it's made in a few places and trucked everywhere. Not counting the food shortage issues. What if there were plants all over to convert corn or switchgrass or sugar cane to ethanol - say 3 or 4 per state - and those plants served the state it's in? Would that make it work better? Or am I missing something entirely?

Edit : And lets assume we could build the infrastucture without any problems.

Actually its not a stupid question.

There would be some definite benefits to that approach, because it bypasses the lack of ethanol plants problem. I know that in Tennessee there is a company that sells distillation kits that allow you to make ethanol, but it cannot be used for human consumption - you have to add at least 10% gasoline by law to the final product or your still can be shut down.

EDIT: Looks like they moved to Florida, just google SouthernStills.

The big hangup is that most farms nowadays are not the traditional family farms, but thuge agricorp plantations where they grow whatever will sell to make the most profit. Right now, the money is in biofuel grains.

But even using grains for animal feed with a small ethanol plant as a way of making the waste profitable has some unavoidable attachments to it. The security company I work for has the contact for the local Tate & Lyle chemical plant where they make cattle feed, some fertilyzer, and some ethanol. My company got the contract because it was determined that the products being manufactured could be used as explosives and must be secured in accordance with the Homeland Security Act. With that in mind, I wonder how they feds would view having numerous small, local ethanol plants scattered throughout the states.

Stumbled across this argument for building a huge solar infrastructure over the next century:

A Grand Solar Plan

It's been noted that this plan could use less land (net) if it were to include rooftop solar panels. Also, the cost cited at the end of the article is less than what the US has spent for the war in Iraq.

Quote from: shewolfEthanol ATM is inefficient because it's made in a few places and trucked everywhere.

It's not really that. It's more that to be able to grow the feedstock, we use a lot of fossil fuels - like, natural gas gets made into ammonium nitrate, fertiliser - and because we use natural gas to heat the feedstock digester so it'll turn into ethanol, like the old guy making moonshine with a little flame under it.

So you have to ask whether it mightn't be better just to burn the natural gas directly, rather than converting it into other stuff and then using it to make ethanol. How much energy do you get out compared to how much you put in? In the US, the average is 1.4:1.

Whether it gets trucked around doesn't make much difference, just a few percent. The big issue is whether you use fossil fuels in growing and processing it.

Quote from: shewolfWhat if there were plants all over to convert corn or switchgrass or sugar cane to ethanol - say 3 or 4 per state - and those plants served the state it's in? Would that make it work better? Or am I missing something entirely?

In terms of energy efficiency, it'd be a bit better - but it'll never happen because it's more expensive. Two 100,000 gallon/day plants cost more than one 200,000 gallon/day plant.

Huh. Now the question would be can I make ethanol out of old hay?

I've got a fuckton of bales that ate more than 11 years old and are no good for bovine or equine consumption - using that to make ethanol and adding that to the farm gas tank would be nice.

EDIT: That's methanol that uses Hay. I should know that after all the Twilight 2000 gaming I've done.... :rolleyes:

$2.34 /gal