Is the so called Green Economy a fantasy?

[Claydon]

Ok, this is not a left vs right rant people, so please take that to another thread. On my recent drive across the southern US I was awe struck by the wind power farms in west texas (they are truly massive), and the petroleum infrastructure of Lousiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama. Now with the recent news of Mr. T. Boone Pickens backing out of his massive wind project due to the plentiful and inexpensive supplies of gas and oil I was wondering if this whole green economy was just a bullshit campaign promise.

Let me be clear here, I am all for reducing pollution in the areas of CO2 and the the real nasty shit like arsenic, mercury, particulates etc. Hence I am all for a giant manhattan style project of building standardized nuclear power plants across the country. Using high efficient diesel engines in cars, coal gasifcation, and the list goes on.

So...is the green economy a fantasy?

[WET HOT MESS]

It takes a lot of time and effort from everyone, but with the way all this red tape is set up, it may be generations before we see fruit. So for now, it's not gunna happen. Everyone wants immediate results with the least effort so we'll probably pass this one up for some other alternative after another until there are no other alternatives.

[Claydon]

It takes a lot of time and effort from everyone, but with the way all this red tape is set up, it may be generations before we see fruit. So for now, it's not gunna happen. Everyone wants immediate results with the least effort so we'll probably pass this one up for some other alternative after another until there are no other alternatives.

I completely agree with you, I don't expect things to happen in 5 months. However, the petroleum infrastructure I saw in the south is an absolute monsters. And when oil gets cheap like it is now, 'green' energy tends to fall off of the radar.

[WET HOT MESS]

Oil isn't cheap if you don't have a job.

[freegood]

Quick answer is no. I typed up the reasoning behind it here (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=635903&postcount=9).

Green energy is tied to a sweet spot in the price of oil. As worldwide demand is reduced during recession, so is the profitability of green energy.

[Morfin]

It is gonna happen. However, with the impetus of sky-high gas prices gone for now, it will proceed slowly. It will take a shock -- like the oil embargo of the early-1970s -- to get people off their duffs. For those of you too young to have experienced it, that embargo led to the development of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. It was only with the plentiful and cheap gas over the past twenty years that has resulted in people again favoring big cars.

The wind farms Claydon saw in Texas, I have seen in Canada. It is a matter of paying for the infrastructure, so until gas spikes again, the amount of investment will remain relatively-low.

[Claydon]

It is gonna happen. However, with the impetus of sky-high gas prices gone for now, it will proceed slowly. It will take a shock -- like the oil embargo of the early-1970s -- to get people off their duffs. For those of you too young to have experienced it, that embargo led to the development of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. It was only with the plentiful and cheap gas over the past twenty years that has resulted in people again favoring big cars.

The wind farms Claydon saw in Texas, I have seen in Canada. It is a matter of paying for the infrastructure, so until gas spikes again, the amount of investment will remain relatively-low.

I remember the oil problems of the 70s. i was a really little kid, but i remember the odd and even days to get gasoline (red flag/green flag). I also remember my dad got this crazy little car called the Honda CVCC which later came to be known as the civic.

[Pharon]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "green economy" but I can tell you first-hand that the whole idea of sustainability -- that is, trying to keep a building running at as minimal an energy operating cost as possible -- is still a hugely popular concept, even now with oil prices receding.

Whether or not global warming is bullshit isn't really the issue, either. I think it's a good idea in general to try and conserve as much as possible and squeeze as much energy efficiency out of our consumption as possible, regardless to any potential harm it has on the environment in the long term.

[freegood]

It also makes businesses cheaper and more efficient to reduce waste.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Well T. Boone Pickens has scrapped his wind-farm. I think the whole thing was just a ruse anyway. He really wants to get natural gas going, that's where he can make monies. Also, I recall a speech by Jimmy Carter about how we are too dependent on oil. That was like 30 years ago. It will happen but probably not in our lifetime.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Business/story?id=8030740&page=1


Despite saying that he would be abandoning plans to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas (http://abcnews.go.comhttp://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8028620), billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5350497&page=1) said that his plan to raise energy awareness in America has "made great progress." Despite saying that he would be abandoning plans to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas (http://abcnews.go.comhttp://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8028620), billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5350497&page=1) said that his plan to raise energy awareness in America has "made great progress."

"We elevated [the cause] as we wanted to do, into the presidential debate," Pickens told "Good Morning America" co-anchor Chris Cuomo.

He said that President Obama's campaign pledge to reduce dependancy on foreign oil helped his cause.

"He said, 'in 10 years, we will not be importing oil from the Mideast,'" Pickens said, recalling Obama's words.

It was exactly one year ago today that Pickens had a lot of people scratching their heads.

The Texas billionaire oilman had become an unlikely renewable energy advocate, and unveiled his massive mission on "GMA." (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5330139&page=1) The Pickens plan was a $60 million ad campaign to get America to kick its foreign oil addiction by switching to natural gas for the short term and wind for the long term.

In the 1950s, Pickens used $2,500 of borrowed money to form Mesa Petroleum, an oil and gas exploration company that led to his fortune.
Pickens said he's pleased that there are provisions for wind and solar power in the climate bill that has passed the House of Representatives and is headed for the Senate.

"We also have bill 1835, which is the House bill, introduced by [Rep. Dan] Boren … and that has the natural gas piece in it, where we're going to now use natural gas in place of foreign oil."

The bill would extend tax credits for the production of vehicles that use alternative fuels, such as natural gas, introduce new tax credits and require 50 percent of all new vehicles purchased or placed in service by the U.S. government by Dec. 31, 2014, to be capable of operating on compressed or liquefied natural gas.

Last year, Pickens said he hoped to make Pampa, Texas, "the wind capital of the world." He said he was aware that a lack of transmission lines or power grids to distribute wind power would pose a challenge but hoped that wind would ultimately replace natural gas as the energy source for many of the country's power plants.
"We've got more wind than anybody else in the world, just like they have more oil," Pickens said at the time. "I think that's the future of this country."

Pickens acknowledged that the recession posed challenges for the wind farm he invested $10 billion in, but said, "we'll get there."

"I mean what do you do in America, if you have changes, you don't give up," he said. "You don't say, 'Oh, it just didn't work out for me'...You need to get started on something. You need to get an oar in the water. You need to start solving a huge problem for America."

He was unable to secure financing for the transmission lines (http://abcnews.go.comhttp://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8028620), and now acknowledges that natural gas is "the only option at this point," although he said he sees it as a bridge from oil to cleaner fuels.

"There's no other, there's nothing else to replace it. It's the one and only resource in America that today can replace foreign oil. It is a cleaner, abundant fuel."

Pickens doesn't believe the decline in gas prices hurt his campaign to raise awareness about energy efficiency.

"It's interesting, because if you look back -- that when the price went down, people lost interest," he said. "This time, I'm not kidding you. ... I think I have embedded that into the the psyche of the American people, that foreign oil, using it at the level we do, is not good for our country and very dangerous for our security."

"What you have to have is leadership," he continued. "We're sold. There's others that are going to be sold. There are others that understand it better than they did a year ago and the people that are with me are constantly sending e-mails to Washington saying, get an energy plan for America and release the security issue that we're confronted with."

Hopeful for the future, Pickens said he expected to have "natural gas fueling legislation before the end of the year."

"I think we're going to be very happy with what comes out of Congress on energy this year."

[BIG PIZZLE]

-tPePpMxJaA

[freegood]

Reagan gutted a lot of the energy standards Carter put in place.

[atoms]

Going all the way to Claydon's initial post. The green economy thing might have been a bullshit thing for Mr. Pickens, and maybe for others. That does not mean it is not real or necessary.

Our problem is that our system, the capitalism, American style, that we have is not very conducive to being proactive. If you look at the more massive undertakings of this country, (Lunar exploration, Manhattan project, WWII in general, creation of the New Deal era hydroelectric system, the interstate highway system, etc) these projects did not happen within the confines of the market economy. In these cases a larger entity tried to be forward looking to tackle a problem that was beyond what private industry was going to do. If you look at changing our energy infrastructure to a much more "green" (higher efficiency, less fossil fuel dependent, more renewable fuel dependent system) it can definitely be argued that this is a project of similar if not larger scope.

The problem is that if left to the market, it will only be pursued when it becomes economically viable. The problem with that is that it means that instead of being proactive, we become reactive. Instead of developing technologies now, for a smooth transition, we develop technologies only after they become profitable...which means only after fossil fuel prices shoot through the roof because supplies diminish precipitously. This means that we set up a period of soaring energy prices as we make a hasty and inefficient transition, a transition that may be more concerned about keeping the lights on, than what is the best way to keep the lights on. This can lead to a period of economic instability, which can also lead to political instability. Do I mean at home...abroad....depends on where the pinch is being felt the worst.

The problem is that green energy has the potential to be competitive with current energy sources....maybe even cheaper. But that takes an economy of scale that simply does not exist now. And for much of it to really work efficiently, it requires a revamping of the infrastructure system, a daunting and expensive proposition. Then take into account that the political system currently favors fossil fuels, with money, tax breaks, and general support given to the industry in general, and many local projects that are pushed for by congressmen and senators.

It is a bit like the housing bubble. When the bubble is growing, we all want to maximize profits, and ignore those who are shouting warnings. When the bubble bursts, we cry and wonder why no one kept this from happening. The energy bubble could be the same. However, we have more ability to make this a smooth transition....if we take it on. And we should take it on prior to it being a disaster. Kind of like, if you could, would you choose to get paid $100,000 for the next 5 years....and then nothing for the rest of your life.....or would you choose to be paid $50,000 in to perpetuity. Anyone with it spelled out would go for the 50k. But the problem is what if you don't know the time frame....instead of a spelled out 5 years, it's 1-50 years. Suddenly much of human nature takes over and assumes for us it will be 50 years, and we'll die first so let's take the 100k and party.

So the simple answer is do we want to wait until the shit hits the fan.....or move the fan.

[HAWK]

Our problem is that our system, the capitalism, American style, that we have is not very conducive to being proactive.

This is so true.

It's not a fantasy, it's simply anti-capitalistic. Convince the population to "go green." To do so you have to make it affordable. Since green/newer technologies are more expensive, it's hard to compete with X Corporation that doesn't give a shit about being green other than the almighty dollar.

Therefore, laws are passed forcing everyone to compete on the same playing field. Right or wrong, only through the enforcement of laws will we ever be green. Of course this, as most things, is complete bullshit. Because we'll only be convinced through advertising and urban legend the good parts of said production/technology/whatever. It's like saying something is labeled "No Sugar Added" but it has a 1000 grams of carbs and "natural" sugars. All people see is the "infotainment" side of everything. But at least we'll be green on paper.

So to answer the question, no it's not a fantasy. But like everything else it'll take 100 years to happen and by then it'll be something else.

[mdaddyrabbit]

I remember the oil problems of the 70s. i was a really little kid, but i remember the odd and even days to get gasoline (red flag/green flag). I also remember my dad got this crazy little car called the Honda CVCC which later came to be known as the civic.

I also remember the oil problems of the 70's, it was a tough time for my folks. Both parents were factory workers making nothing for a living. We sit in long lines for gas and the temp outside would melt you. Enough about that, no need for the bad memories.

The green thing in my opinion is for large corporations to make money. We are told we need to save the earth and find new ways of creating energy, but the majority of the sources, supplies and equipment to create new ways of energy are too expensive to even get off the ground. It's disgusting if you really think about it; the government can put a man on the moon and just about make anything but they cannot build a car that gets better gas mileage than whats out there? The fact is the govenment makes enough money off gas that they don't want to change the efficiency of the automobile. There have been inventors who have built cars that were very efficient, but the government bought the plans up so it never seen the light of day. Here in North Carolina the state government gets .40 cents of every gallon of gas that is bought, why would they want to change that?

Another item of the green economy is everyone wants to jump on the healthy band-wagon. A lot of people tote a bottle of water around. How many bottle water companies specify where the water comes from or how it is purified? This is amazing, most people drink bottled water because it makes them feel safer and more healthy, but there are more test performed on tap water than bottled water. Another point is some of these bottles never get recycled they end up in the landfill or in a ditch side the road or in our water ways, how can that be green?

Bottom line is I don't mind doing things to better the enviroment, but I have to do it at my income level. I don't drink bottled water, I drink tap. I think the US has lost its mind when it comes to the subject of going green.

[BIG PIZZLE]

From 1978.

lJVzySk0Pks

[tockit]

It takes a lot of time and effort from everyone, but with the way all this red tape is set up, it may be generations before we see fruit. So for now, it's not gunna happen. Everyone wants immediate results with the least effort so we'll probably pass this one up for some other alternative after another until there are no other alternatives.
You could be right, but I hope I do live to see the day we can cut our dependency on foreign oil.

This is a complex issue, with no easy answers.

Wind, solar, and nuclear power are fine for providing power for our electrical grid (if the environmental wacko's will step out of the way), but as far as the transportation industry, thats a whole different story.

IMO its going to take a new technology or fuel source that hasn't been developed yet to tackle the transportation side of this issue.

We've created this whole infrastructure over the last hundred years or so built specifically around the gasoline/diesel engine, and thats not going to be an easy change-over in the short term unless someone can come up with a fuel source thats compatible with the gasoline/diesel engine, is relatively cheap, safe, green, and plentiful.

I think the hydrogen fuel cells are a step in the right direction, but they're still not even close to being practical for the average person to afford, the supply infrastruture isn't in place, and you still have to figure out how to adapt this technology to work with the existing gasoline/diesel engine vehicles.

I don't think that raising taxes on fossil fuels while there is presently no major alternative fuel source is the answer. Especially given the current economic climate.

Most analysts seem to think that one of the best ways out of our current economic dilemma would be the invention of a new technology such as an alternative fuel source.

It would definitely be a God-send if it happened.

[atoms]

Who the hell abducted Tockit and took over his account!!!

Seriously, I'm curious. Do you see government having any role in this? Is there an opportunity to increase the chances of that "godsend"? Does government need to increase it's commitment to alternative fuels, and energy source research and development? Does government need to scale back it's current assistance/favored status for fossil fuels (generally domestic fossil fuels).

If government is not to be a role player in this....how does the private sector act pro-actively on something like this, particularly when any profits may be so far out there (in time) as to make them untenable?

Now that I know you have a green streak, I'm curious how that reconciles with your libertarian streak. The two seem at some level to be opposed.

I'm looking forward to your response...(if you think there is any irony there....there really isn't, I found your post one of the most interesting you've made, and am curious how it jives with your other values/beliefs)

You could be right, but I hope I do live to see the day we can cut our dependency on foreign oil.

This is a complex issue, with no easy answers.

Wind, solar, and nuclear power are fine for providing power for our electrical grid (if the environmental wacko's will step out of the way), but as far as the transportation industry, thats a whole different story.

IMO its going to take a new technology or fuel source that hasn't been developed yet to tackle the transportation side of this issue.

We've created this whole infrastructure over the last hundred years or so built specifically around the gasoline/diesel engine, and thats not going to be an easy change-over in the short term unless someone can come up with a fuel source thats compatible with the gasoline/diesel engine, is relatively cheap, safe, green, and plentiful.

I think the hydrogen fuel cells are a step in the right direction, but they're still not even close to being practical for the average person to afford, the supply infrastruture isn't in place, and you still have to figure out how to adapt this technology to work with the existing gasoline/diesel engine vehicles.

I don't think that raising taxes on fossil fuels while there is presently no major alternative fuel source is the answer. Especially given the current economic climate.

Most analysts seem to think that one of the best ways out of our current economic dilemma would be the invention of a new technology such as an alternative fuel source.

It would definitely be a God-send if it happened.

[tockit]

Seriously, I'm curious. Do you see government having any role in this? Is there an opportunity to increase the chances of that "godsend"? Does government need to increase it's commitment to alternative fuels, and energy source research and development? Does government need to scale back it's current assistance/favored status for fossil fuels (generally domestic fossil fuels).

If government is not to be a role player in this....how does the private sector act pro-actively on something like this, particularly when any profits may be so far out there (in time) as to make them untenable?
I'm not as simple minded as the omniscient Arch makes me out to be.

And I don't really have a "green" streak as much as I think its imperative for us to rid ourselves of our dependency on foreign oil for the security and economic stability of our country.

We have put ourselves in a precarious situation by continuing to get the majority of our oil supply from the middle east, from countries that largely hate us and can manipulate their prices at will.

When these countries control the vast majority of our primary energy source, they basically control us.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for cleaner burning fuel sources, but I'm sceptical of the global warming scare that some parties are trying to push, and think they're using alarmist tactics to promote their agenda.

And if GW does exist, who's to say we can change it? Especially when some of the largest polluting countries like China, Russia, Korea, etc, probably won't accept or adhere to the carbon output policies this administration is talking about placing on the US. (Not to start a GW debate, but that's my opinion).

As far as the governments involvement. I'm of the mindset that the government usually isn't the answer to any of our needs. Most of the time, its the problem (for instance - placing a carbon output cap on the US, while many large countries are exempt).

I believe in the American spirit and think this is still the land of opportunity. There's enough incentive in the free market system to entice inventors to create a new, clean burning fuel source.

The person who comes up with a viable alternative to fossil fuel will most likely be the next "Bill Gates".

Heck, we came up with the airplane (as we know it today), the laser, the internet, the microprocessor, and the polio vaccine.

I don't think an alternative fuel source is out of the question.

[Nosebuckle]

We have put ourselves in a precarious situation by continuing to get the majority of our oil supply from the middle east, from countries that largely hate us and can manipulate their prices at will.

When these countries control the vast majority of our primary energy source, they basically control us.
Your previous post is fine, but this is simply wrong. We import the majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico, two states we're not at war with. And exactly how does importing oil from places like Saudi Arabia threaten our security? History teaches us that nations with significant trade relations are more likely to avoid conflict with each other, and for good reason.

[Das Kahlua]

It depends upon what the working definition of 'Green technology' is. A lot of people have been choosing options like Hybrid cars in an effort to cut down on 'greenhouse gases,' but they clearly don't understand just how bad for the environment Hybrid cars are. The raw materials to make the batteries are mined in Canada, a process that is absolutely horrible for the local environment, then the materials are shipped to Europe, China, Japan and finally back to the US as the finished product. How much you want to bet that the environmental cost of driving Hybrids is worse than driving the biggest gas-guzzling SUV on the market?

Or, since the largest producers of CO2 emissions are livestock, that biking to work or school is actually worse for the environment than driving because it causes people to eat more, and thus more livestock to feed the increased demand.

It's a complex, ever-changing dynamic, and we're never going to fully solve the problem since we can never fully understand it. It's not so easy to separate it from the commercialized global warming push, and the biggest obstacle is how few people know the actual facts. They're told to drive Hybrid cars, watch Al Gore's movie and vote for Democrats, and everything will be fine, when the reality is a much different story.

As long as the tone of the debate is set by people whose priorities are political and economic advancement rather than the truth, we'll keep spinning in circles and never find any real solutions.

[atoms]

Tockit,

I appreciate your response. I do fear that you may be a bit naive in the hope that someone....somewhere...will just figure it out. And the reason I think that is the examples you gave, (not to mention that you did not even address the major government programs that I indicated in my post above)

You mentioned as private innovations in the U.S.:
The Airplane (as we know it today), the Laser, the internet, the microprocessor and the polio vaccine.

The airplane in it's initial invention was pretty much a private enterprise, at least for the Wright brothers.....however "as we know it today", airplane technology as developed in the U.S. has been a government funded enterprise. That is government fueled the demand for airplanes in military purposes. Private companies filled that demand, and developed much of the technology, but had the wherewithal to do that because they had a client with deep pockets, demanding cutting edge products. This government funded military technology later was adapted to civilian uses, but the definite impetus for advancement came from government dollars.

The LASER, I found out was based upon theories of Albert Einstein's....I never knew. While very theoretical research speculation was done on a largely private basis at universities in the 20's, 30's and 40's. It was Bell Labs that developed basically a "blueprint" for an actual laser in the late 50's, and then Hughes Research Labs that developed the first working laser in the early 60's. Both Bell Labs and Hughes Research Labs made most of their money from the government (particularly Hughes). While I was not able to directly document where the research at Bell Labs was government funded, it most definitely was at Hughes, where the government was close to being Hughes only client (buyer of their products and technology), as well as providing funding for general research.

The internet was initially a military networking system, and then was moved to universities, though through it's initial stages at universities it was a government supported project.

Going back to the name it had in it's earlier stages the integrated circuit (microprocessor) was developed by several companies, with most of the early development happening in the 1950's. Did not directly see government funding during this stage, though the government was the primary consumer that Texas Instruments and other early integrated circuit developers were working for. However, with Sputnik, up until Apollo there was a huge push to develop better, smaller IC's for the space race. This was largely government funded both with funds for research and the government as the primary consumer.

The polio vaccine became a major U.S. concern in the early 20th century. Funding for defeating polio came primarily from two sources.....the march of dimes (what the organization was founded for) and the U.S. government. While research had been done in the early 20th century, with breakthrough's after world war II, it was the influx of funds and attention that made the final push to create Salk's then Sabin's vaccines. At this time polio only exists in 4 countries in the world.

So what's my point. Frankly, like it or not, the U.S. government played a pivotal role in bringing all of the technologies you mentioned to full fruition. All, except for the initial stages of the internet, were developed privately, but with government support and money. Polio was a good example of a private-public push to handle one of the most serious issues of it's day.

I'm not advocating that the U.S. government suddenly put 20% of it's budget to developing non-fossil fuel energy sources. But the government has many opportunities to encourage development in these areas, and to discourage, or at least roll-back it's current incentivizing of fossil fuels. I understand the right's distrust of the government...I really do. But I fear that there are problems that can only be handled by very large entities, or at least only with the support of very large entities. And this might be one of them. Recent history seems to show that government has helped foster the early stages of much of the technology innovations we take for granted now. Not sure why that would not apply to "green" technology as well.

[atoms]

Your previous post is fine, but this is simply wrong. We import the majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico, two states we're not at war with. And exactly how does importing oil from places like Saudi Arabia threaten our security? History teaches us that nations with significant trade relations are more likely to avoid conflict with each other, and for good reason.

Nosebuckle....you are as wrong as Tockit....if not more so

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

In 2008 46% of our oil was imported from OPEC countries, 54% from non-OPEC. So non-OPEC is the majority....however OPEC's hold is significant.

Canada and Mexico represent 29% of our oil imports in 2008. Canada is our number one supplier, followed by Saudi Arabia, then Mexico (though in the recent past Mexico did supply more than Saudi Arabia).

As to trade relations with other countries....yea, they are great, and they do probably help prevent frivolous conflicts. But the issue becomes stickier when they control (and by control I mean if we suddenly lost 46% of our imported oil it would be devastating) what is currently our life blood. In the past we have had a similar control over them, as we were their only viable market. But that is changing as China and India become more viable and have more demand. Simply put....it may not be the best trade commodity to have controlled by others.

Lastly, you might be curious how much of our oil is imported, usually it is around 60% (number was from 2005, but believe it is still close today).

[atoms]

Kahlua,

So what do we do.....nothing? While this may be very influenced by politics, and that is unfortunate, it is the system we live in. On the one hand you may have the democrats that support anything that is green (real or not) and on the other hand you may have republicans that oppose anything green (whether it actually benefits our country or no) and this is simply because for some reason it seems that these two must always be in opposition.

Frankly much of the technology advances I talked about happened, not only because there was government support, but because, as a nation we agreed that these things were a priority. And when I say as a nation, I don't mean that a farmer in Iowa was personally debating with himself if we should be sending money to Hughes Research Labs to develop LASER's. I mean that we knew we were in a technology race with the Soviet Union, and that we needed to push the envelope, and that farmer had some trust that the government was going to do that, because it was beyond what a farmer in Iowa could do on his own.

I'm going to throw something out.....when it has purpose, the U.S. Government has been incredibly productive. When it lacks purpose, it has been incredibly wasteful. I guess I'm saying this, for many reasons, may need to be a priority (I've seen a lot that convinces me it is, and little that convinces me otherwise). The reasons are many, U.S. Security, continued stabilization of the environment (if possible) through the prevention of global warming, pursuing the "technology of tomorrow" to keep the U.S. a strong economic force in this world, and the general preservation of earth as a "nice" place.

Green may be a bad word, because it's been taken on by one party. But frankly we look to be at a time when our status quo can not last.....so it's time to move on, and in fact this can be as prolific a time as was the space race.....or we can just sit here and argue about it.

It depends upon what the working definition of 'Green technology' is. A lot of people have been choosing options like Hybrid cars in an effort to cut down on 'greenhouse gases,' but they clearly don't understand just how bad for the environment Hybrid cars are. The raw materials to make the batteries are mined in Canada, a process that is absolutely horrible for the local environment, then the materials are shipped to Europe, China, Japan and finally back to the US as the finished product. How much you want to bet that the environmental cost of driving Hybrids is worse than driving the biggest gas-guzzling SUV on the market?

Or, since the largest producers of CO2 emissions are livestock, that biking to work or school is actually worse for the environment than driving because it causes people to eat more, and thus more livestock to feed the increased demand.

It's a complex, ever-changing dynamic, and we're never going to fully solve the problem since we can never fully understand it. It's not so easy to separate it from the commercialized global warming push, and the biggest obstacle is how few people know the actual facts. They're told to drive Hybrid cars, watch Al Gore's movie and vote for Democrats, and everything will be fine, when the reality is a much different story.

As long as the tone of the debate is set by people whose priorities are political and economic advancement rather than the truth, we'll keep spinning in circles and never find any real solutions.

[Das Kahlua]

Kahlua,

So what do we do.....nothing? While this may be very influenced by politics, and that is unfortunate, it is the system we live in. On the one hand you may have the democrats that support anything that is green (real or not) and on the other hand you may have republicans that oppose anything green (whether it actually benefits our country or no) and this is simply because for some reason it seems that these two must always be in opposition.

Frankly much of the technology advances I talked about happened, not only because there was government support, but because, as a nation we agreed that these things were a priority. And when I say as a nation, I don't mean that a farmer in Iowa was personally debating with himself if we should be sending money to Hughes Research Labs to develop LASER's. I mean that we knew we were in a technology race with the Soviet Union, and that we needed to push the envelope, and that farmer had some trust that the government was going to do that, because it was beyond what a farmer in Iowa could do on his own.

I'm going to throw something out.....when it has purpose, the U.S. Government has been incredibly productive. When it lacks purpose, it has been incredibly wasteful. I guess I'm saying this, for many reasons, may need to be a priority (I've seen a lot that convinces me it is, and little that convinces me otherwise). The reasons are many, U.S. Security, continued stabilization of the environment (if possible) through the prevention of global warming, pursuing the "technology of tomorrow" to keep the U.S. a strong economic force in this world, and the general preservation of earth as a "nice" place.

Green may be a bad word, because it's been taken on by one party. But frankly we look to be at a time when our status quo can not last.....so it's time to move on, and in fact this can be as prolific a time as was the space race.....or we can just sit here and argue about it.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do 'nothing,' only that we step back for a second and make sure that what we're doing, we're doing it for the right reasons, and not simply to 'do something.' The reason I pointed out the examples of hybrid cars and biking instead of driving, is that those were two major things that have been suggested as 'solutions' to _______ (fill in the blank with your problem of choice: global warming, dependence on foreign oil, etc), yet they may very well be larger contributors to environmental problems than the initial problems they were promised to fix.

When I said that it's not so easy to separate this issue from politics, I don't by any means want to suggest that it's a simply Republican vs Democrat problem, in reality it most likely comes down more to where one politician gets his/her campaign donations from, Exxon vs Sierra Club, GM vs GE.

I'm not necessarily saying that the Government can't be a usual tool for change, but that's only when it's headed in the right direction. Why were 'solutions' like hybrids and biking instead of driving touted as such? Because most of the blame for global warming or whatever other environmental issue du jour goes to Big Oil, and these 'solutions' were an alternative to fossil fuels, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if they work or not, or even if they're counter-productive or not, they take money from the pockets of Big Oil, and that's good enough for some people.

When this sort of attitude is so pervasive in Washington, where it's more important to 'get' the other guy than it is to be right, then you're absolutely correct that I want Government as far away from this, and every other issue, as possible. You pointed out a bunch of highly successful Government-run or -supported programs in the past, and that's great, but the fact that I am not sure how many of those could be possible in this day and age is all the proof that I need that the Government would most likely screw this up more than make it better. And that goes for Republicans just as much as it does Democrats.

[freegood]

I also remember the oil problems of the 70's, it was a tough time for my folks. Both parents were factory workers making nothing for a living. We sit in long lines for gas and the temp outside would melt you. Enough about that, no need for the bad memories.

The green thing in my opinion is for large corporations to make money. We are told we need to save the earth and find new ways of creating energy, but the majority of the sources, supplies and equipment to create new ways of energy are too expensive to even get off the ground. It's disgusting if you really think about it; the government can put a man on the moon and just about make anything but they cannot build a car that gets better gas mileage than whats out there? The fact is the govenment makes enough money off gas that they don't want to change the efficiency of the automobile. There have been inventors who have built cars that were very efficient, but the government bought the plans up so it never seen the light of day. Here in North Carolina the state government gets .40 cents of every gallon of gas that is bought, why would they want to change that?


There are so many things that are "green" and many people who consider themselves environmentalists.

Libertarians who are environmentally minded should check out the Rocky Mountain Institute (http://www.rmi.org/). They're all about private solutions and augmenting current public policy to help it.

Link on their frontpage
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203771904574179270925771280.html

Another item of the green economy is everyone wants to jump on the healthy band-wagon. A lot of people tote a bottle of water around. How many bottle water companies specify where the water comes from or how it is purified? This is amazing, most people drink bottled water because it makes them feel safer and more healthy, but there are more test performed on tap water than bottled water. Another point is some of these bottles never get recycled they end up in the landfill or in a ditch side the road or in our water ways, how can that be green?

Bottom line is I don't mind doing things to better the enviroment, but I have to do it at my income level. I don't drink bottled water, I drink tap. I think the US has lost its mind when it comes to the subject of going green.

Bottled Water aint that fantastic for the environment. It is a great case study in marketing.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20070420/bottled-water.gif

[atoms]

I can't argue with much in your post. I think this is a republican/democrat issue, only in that they seem to be having fun in being opposed, instead of finding solutions. Right now I feel if a democrat says black a republican says no...white....if a republican says high a democrat says....no low. This is not conducive to finding solutions

But I just don't see who but the U.S. government can have the power and the big picture view to be doing the stepping back and looking that you are suggesting. And believe me I'm very open to a real suggestion. In fact my issue is that I don't think this can be done piecemeal....which I think is just your point in what is happening with the hybrids, etc.

But it's important that we don't just be a naysayer to be a naysayer. For example, even if everything you state about hybrids is true, it may still be valuable as a first step in producing more fuel efficiency/carbon emissions. That is there is an inefficiency in newness, that has to be overcome (and probably can be overcome). That is if a technology might be a net loss in the short term, it can still be a net gain in the long term. If everything has to be about immediate results.....were probably screwed.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do 'nothing,' only that we step back for a second and make sure that what we're doing, we're doing it for the right reasons, and not simply to 'do something.' The reason I pointed out the examples of hybrid cars and biking instead of driving, is that those were two major things that have been suggested as 'solutions' to _______ (fill in the blank with your problem of choice: global warming, dependence on foreign oil, etc), yet they may very well be larger contributors to environmental problems than the initial problems they were promised to fix.

When I said that it's not so easy to separate this issue from politics, I don't by any means want to suggest that it's a simply Republican vs Democrat problem, in reality it most likely comes down more to where one politician gets his/her campaign donations from, Exxon vs Sierra Club, GM vs GE.

I'm not necessarily saying that the Government can't be a usual tool for change, but that's only when it's headed in the right direction. Why were 'solutions' like hybrids and biking instead of driving touted as such? Because most of the blame for global warming or whatever other environmental issue du jour goes to Big Oil, and these 'solutions' were an alternative to fossil fuels, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if they work or not, or even if they're counter-productive or not, they take money from the pockets of Big Oil, and that's good enough for some people.

When this sort of attitude is so pervasive in Washington, where it's more important to 'get' the other guy than it is to be right, then you're absolutely correct that I want Government as far away from this, and every other issue, as possible. You pointed out a bunch of highly successful Government-run or -supported programs in the past, and that's great, but the fact that I am not sure how many of those could be possible in this day and age is all the proof that I need that the Government would most likely screw this up more than make it better. And that goes for Republicans just as much as it does Democrats.

[Das Kahlua]

I can't argue with much in your post. I think this is a republican/democrat issue, only in that they seem to be having fun in being opposed, instead of finding solutions. Right now I feel if a democrat says black a republican says no...white....if a republican says high a democrat says....no low. This is not conducive to finding solutions

But I just don't see who but the U.S. government can have the power and the big picture view to be doing the stepping back and looking that you are suggesting. And believe me I'm very open to a real suggestion. In fact my issue is that I don't think this can be done piecemeal....which I think is just your point in what is happening with the hybrids, etc.

But it's important that we don't just be a naysayer to be a naysayer. For example, even if everything you state about hybrids is true, it may still be valuable as a first step in producing more fuel efficiency/carbon emissions. That is there is an inefficiency in newness, that has to be overcome (and probably can be overcome). That is if a technology might be a net loss in the short term, it can still be a net gain in the long term. If everything has to be about immediate results.....were probably screwed.

Here's the first major obstacle we have to overcome: what is the problem(s) that we should be tackling?

I don't ask this question tongue-in-cheek, either, because if you ask person A what the biggest problem is, he/she might say "Global Warming" whereas person B might say "dependence on foreign oil." True, there might be some common ground both sides could agree on, but those are two majorly different issues and should be handled in different ways. This is also exactly why sometimes it's better to wait, figure out exactly what issue to address, and then take action instead of simply 'doing stuff' to look productive.

I, personally, think that the whole 'man made global warming' push is complete nonsense, and I have plenty of evidence I can bring to the table to support my position. People on GMF like Stax strongly disagree, and he can bring his own information to the table to support his views. We have had many debates on this very issue, and neither of us are convinced of the other's position; now imagine this on a national or international level, and it starts to get really difficult.

Our first step, our very first step before anything is acted upon, is to get all the facts straight. The more information the better, the more experts the better, and not just those with agendas, all of them. Stop suppressing EPA reports that disagree with your position, get all the information possible, and then commission an impartial panel to review all of the information and make a recommendation, and then the politicians act on the experts opinions and stop pretending like they're the experts. That should be the absolute first step before doing anything, especially something as drastic as cap-and-trade.

The world has survived this long without our 'help,' it'll be just fine for another year or two, but enacting radical policies that are potentially based on BS science could have truly catostrophic effects on our economy. It's better, in cases like this, to slow down and evaluate and reevaluate than rush in.

[freegood]

I think everyone has formed their opinion on man-made Global Warming. In that sense, I agree with atoms that society needs several swift kicks in the ass to do something about it.

Elsewhere, there are several other issues that are proven and known that people can address. Global Warming is a huge distraction in the big scheme of things, with overpopulation on top of the list.

[atoms]

Kahlua,

Sounds good....let's get going on it.

My fear is that we just sit around and do nothing until it is too late.....and what is too late....take your pick....global warming actually hits some tipping point and the gulf stream shuts off....war in the middle east hits, drastically curtailing oil availability.....Oil runs out.....the planet becomes more of a shithole than nice place to live because we don't give a shit. Pro-active is better than reactive.

And it may be possible to agree that there are some areas (that common ground) that everyone can agree on, and get going on those even while we decide the rest of the strategy. Taking time and coming up with a good approach.....fine....procrastinating....not fine.

[Das Kahlua]

I think everyone has formed their opinion on man-made Global Warming. In that sense, I agree with atoms that society needs several swift kicks in the ass to do something about it.

Elsewhere, there are several other issues that are proven and known that people can address. Global Warming is a huge distraction in the big scheme of things, with overpopulation on top of the list.

Kahlua,

Sounds good....let's get going on it.

My fear is that we just sit around and do nothing until it is too late.....and what is too late....take your pick....global warming actually hits some tipping point and the gulf stream shuts off....war in the middle east hits, drastically curtailing oil availability.....Oil runs out.....the planet becomes more of a shithole than nice place to live because we don't give a shit. Pro-active is better than reactive.

And it may be possible to agree that there are some areas (that common ground) that everyone can agree on, and get going on those even while we decide the rest of the strategy. Taking time and coming up with a good approach.....fine....procrastinating....not fine.

I agree with both of you, but any conversation these days inevitably leads to global warming sooner or later, usually sooner. Ironically, it's the same environmentalists who yell and scream about global warming who also opposing the building of wind farms, hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants. It's the classic catch-22, damned if you do damned if you don't. So, what's the alternative? Ram through plans for nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams and wind farms, and the environmentalists be damned? Well, you'll never get the votes from West Coast states or the upper North Eastern ones, but the rest of the country will probably be on board.

That's only the first step, though. Should the government begin dictating fuel standard benchmarks to the already insolvent auto industry with the threat of punishment, or should be encourage 'free market solutions' by loosening tax burdens to provide working capital and potentially bonus incentives to companies that find working alternatives, the proverbial carrot? Or neither? Should we be using more of our own natural resources, or continue relying of foreign sources?

You're both right, there are a lot of questions and issues at play here, and it is a shame how they get lost in the bigger cloud of GW hype, one way or the other, but unfortunately I don't know how easily they are separated.

[atoms]

i think there is some hope. As "green" becomes more accepted and not a fringe idea, those newer "converts" tend to be a bit more practical. I think the radical environmentalists (those who scream about global warming and against some of these energy sources) are becoming less and less the guiding force of the movement. This is a practical problem with practical solutions....much like the space race, etc.

But back to your taking a step back.....I'd argue that hydro-electric at least in some of it's forms is no where near as effective as we'd like. The great dammed projects of the new deal, that created huge lakes, but also did lots of ecological damage are silting up. 100 year stop gaps that come with a large damage are not the solution. Fossil fuels....not sustainable. Huge Hoover Dam like hydroelectric projects....not sustainable.....Nuclear....not sustainable until we figure out a solution with the waste....and it does rely on a non-renewable resource. Yucca Mountain (that I've been inside) doesn't even have enough capacity for current waste, much less future waste....and it's no where near online. Some stop gaps might be necessary.....just as long as we recognize them as such. But permanent solutions are going to be better.

I agree with both of you, but any conversation these days inevitably leads to global warming sooner or later, usually sooner. Ironically, it's the same environmentalists who yell and scream about global warming who also opposing the building of wind farms, hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants. It's the classic catch-22, damned if you do damned if you don't. So, what's the alternative? Ram through plans for nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams and wind farms, and the environmentalists be damned? Well, you'll never get the votes from West Coast states or the upper North Eastern ones, but the rest of the country will probably be on board.

That's only the first step, though. Should the government begin dictating fuel standard benchmarks to the already insolvent auto industry with the threat of punishment, or should be encourage 'free market solutions' by loosening tax burdens to provide working capital and potentially bonus incentives to companies that find working alternatives, the proverbial carrot? Or neither? Should we be using more of our own natural resources, or continue relying of foreign sources?

You're both right, there are a lot of questions and issues at play here, and it is a shame how they get lost in the bigger cloud of GW hype, one way or the other, but unfortunately I don't know how easily they are separated.

[freegood]

I agree with both of you, but any conversation these days inevitably leads to global warming sooner or later, usually sooner. Ironically, it's the same environmentalists who yell and scream about global warming who also opposing the building of wind farms, hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants.

They aren't the same people. Some oppose nukes because the cradle to grave impacts are too high. Others oppose dams because it changes the landscape for the affected rivers. People who oppose wind farms are nuts. They think they're ugly (lower house prices), it kills precious little birdies, whatever...

Ultimately with whatever they oppose, there's likely solutions they do support. I doubt even the insane are twiddling their thumbs while crying out teh d00m that is global warming.


Should the government begin dictating fuel standard benchmarks to the already insolvent auto industry with the threat of punishment

Benchmarks in the form of CAFE standards and state level gas refinement regulation are already in place. The government has been dictating that for years. The auto industry fought them every step of the way.


should be encourage 'free market solutions' by loosening tax burdens to provide working capital and potentially bonus incentives to companies that find working alternatives, the proverbial carrot? Or neither? Should we be using more of our own natural resources, or continue relying of foreign sources?

Companies are already going green because it's proven to be cheaper. Government, imo, should kick in with costly technologies that require economies of scale in order to break even/become profitable.

If I had my way, I'd force the banning of incandescent lightbulbs with the ugly compact flourescent lightbulbs. Say all you want about mercury poisoning, but it reduces lighting costs to 1/3. If you're butterfingers, let someone else handle the installation and disposal.

Simple shit like efficiency and conservation could save the need to find another Saudi Arabia.


You're both right, there are a lot of questions and issues at play here, and it is a shame how they get lost in the bigger cloud of GW hype, one way or the other, but unfortunately I don't know how easily they are separated.

I don't think things are clear cut when it comes to government involvement, but the government isn't the end all solution. If anything, private industry will outpace government and public opinion when it comes to getting something useful out. Where market forces break down is when existing technologies are cheaper upfront and its externalities are accepted, whether because its more expensive to care, the consumer doesn't care, or the burden to care lies upon the entire industry.

[Claydon]

i feel dizzy...

people are actually having a civilized debate on gmf.

[Das Kahlua]

i think there is some hope. As "green" becomes more accepted and not a fringe idea, those newer "converts" tend to be a bit more practical. I think the radical environmentalists (those who scream about global warming and against some of these energy sources) are becoming less and less the guiding force of the movement. This is a practical problem with practical solutions....much like the space race, etc.

But back to your taking a step back.....I'd argue that hydro-electric at least in some of it's forms is no where near as effective as we'd like. The great dammed projects of the new deal, that created huge lakes, but also did lots of ecological damage are silting up. 100 year stop gaps that come with a large damage are not the solution. Fossil fuels....not sustainable. Huge Hoover Dam like hydroelectric projects....not sustainable.....Nuclear....not sustainable until we figure out a solution with the waste....and it does rely on a non-renewable resource. Yucca Mountain (that I've been inside) doesn't even have enough capacity for current waste, much less future waste....and it's no where near online. Some stop gaps might be necessary.....just as long as we recognize them as such. But permanent solutions are going to be better.

Unless we can tap into some mythical energy source like zero point energy or cold fusion, there are going to be draw backs to any energy source we come up with, it's just a fact of life. We, as Americans, need to stop assuming that we are God's chosen people who can come up with miracle solutions to every problem. It's not a case of finding the perfect energy source, only finding the best available.

Dams, wind farms, nuclear power, fossil fuels, all have their draw backs and all have their benefits. We have existed perfectly fine for decades with fossil fuels and France has generated over 80% of their energy needs for decades with nuclear power. Does that mean that either of those alone is a viable solution for a country the size and diversity of the US? No, but in combination, all of the available energy sources can help cut back on pollution and still provide all of our energy needs at reduced cost.

I don't expect to wake up tomorrow with fully functional next generation technologies, it's a marathon not a sprint, and I understand and agree that we should start the process immediately, whether it be with hybrids or hydrogen cars, but I do believe that we need more options, not less, and nothing should be taken off the table, including fossil fuels and nuclear power, at least for the short term.

[atoms]

Agreed, as long as we recognize short term as short term and long term as preferable...I think much of our preference for fossil fuel is not because it is superior, but because of two things. It's entrenched, and those that are profiting from it are trying to keep it entrenched.

I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons for keeping fossil fuels in the mix.....those just aren't it.

And the reality is that true renewable sources exist.....They are wind, solar, geothermal. It seems that hydroelectric could also be....but not the way we've been doing it. And there are others with potential, hydrogen, biofuels (just because the recent biofuel push was a clusterfuck, doesn't mean that there isn't potential there).

I point these out because I think all of them have less drawbacks then fossil fuels, nuclear and old-fashioned hydro-electric. Their biggest drawback is that we are still much further down on the learning curve in these areas......going back to some of my original points.

Unless we can tap into some mythical energy source like zero point energy or cold fusion, there are going to be draw backs to any energy source we come up with, it's just a fact of life. We, as Americans, need to stop assuming that we are God's chosen people who can come up with miracle solutions to every problem. It's not a case of finding the perfect energy source, only finding the best available.

Dams, wind farms, nuclear power, fossil fuels, all have their draw backs and all have their benefits. We have existed perfectly fine for decades with fossil fuels and France has generated over 80% of their energy needs for decades with nuclear power. Does that mean that either of those alone is a viable solution for a country the size and diversity of the US? No, but in combination, all of the available energy sources can help cut back on pollution and still provide all of our energy needs at reduced cost.

I don't expect to wake up tomorrow with fully functional next generation technologies, it's a marathon not a sprint, and I understand and agree that we should start the process immediately, whether it be with hybrids or hydrogen cars, but I do believe that we need more options, not less, and nothing should be taken off the table, including fossil fuels and nuclear power, at least for the short term.

[Das Kahlua]

They aren't the same people. Some oppose nukes because the cradle to grave impacts are too high. Others oppose dams because it changes the landscape for the affected rivers. People who oppose wind farms are nuts. They think they're ugly (lower house prices), it kills precious little birdies, whatever...

Ultimately with whatever they oppose, there's likely solutions they do support. I doubt even the insane are twiddling their thumbs while crying out teh d00m that is global warming.

Some of the people are different, some are the same. They claim that wind farms kill birds, dams affect migratory patterns for fish and nuclear energy has the potential for incalculable environmental consequences.

Benchmarks in the form of CAFE standards and state level gas refinement regulation are already in place. The government has been dictating that for years. The auto industry fought them every step of the way.

And all the accomplished was the creation of the SUV class to bypass the standards. Nothing accomplished. Which is not surprising, when you have people who have never worked a day of their lives in the auto industry trying to tell the experts what kind of cars to make.

Companies are already going green because it's proven to be cheaper. Government, imo, should kick in with costly technologies that require economies of scale in order to break even/become profitable.

Perhaps, but once again 'Green' is about corporate profitability rather than any meaningful change for the environment.

If I had my way, I'd force the banning of incandescent lightbulbs with the ugly compact flourescent lightbulbs. Say all you want about mercury poisoning, but it reduces lighting costs to 1/3. If you're butterfingers, let someone else handle the installation and disposal.

Simple shit like efficiency and conservation could save the need to find another Saudi Arabia.

And maybe we should, but I would prefer not to have to trade safety for economic concerns. Also, where exactly would the government get the authority for such a ban, in the first place, especially since incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the US and flourescent ones are made in China.

I don't think things are clear cut when it comes to government involvement, but the government isn't the end all solution. If anything, private industry will outpace government and public opinion when it comes to getting something useful out. Where market forces break down is when existing technologies are cheaper upfront and its externalities are accepted, whether because its more expensive to care, the consumer doesn't care, or the burden to care lies upon the entire industry.

I don't disagree, but it is one thing for the government to give a helping hand to industry to made a transition such as this, versus the equivalent of an unfunded mandate for the private sector. I just think that when we're talking about undertaking policies that will result in much higher costs for the consumer, we need to make sure that we're doing those things for the right reason, not for political expediency.

[Claydon]

Couple of interesting notes about the so called 'green movement' in my fine state.

It is illegal to build a nuclear reactor in this state under state law. The two power plants online are over 35 years old and are in the early stages of decommissioning. A new plant was built in 1975 and was operated until 1987/89....but then chernobyl happened and all the pansies started holding up pictures of chernobyl and protesting. GreenPeace scared the shit out of the residents, which is not hard to do with the fools in this state. A law was passed in california that we cannot have anymore reactors in this state. Furthermore, those reactors still have a shit ton of fuel (the one that was never activated in 87) and the rate payers of california get to pay millions per year to maintain a nuclear plant that does not produce one electron of electricity. So now we import a ton of electricity from massive, dirty coal fired plants in southern Utah. Brilliant!

And even better, we can't even produce medical grade isotopes in this state.... fucking dumbasses.

[Das Kahlua]

Agreed, as long as we recognize short term as short term and long term as preferable...I think much of our preference for fossil fuel is not because it is superior, but because of two things. It's entrenched, and those that are profiting from it are trying to keep it entrenched.

I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons for keeping fossil fuels in the mix.....those just aren't it.

And the reality is that true renewable sources exist.....They are wind, solar, geothermal. It seems that hydroelectric could also be....but not the way we've been doing it. And there are others with potential, hydrogen, biofuels (just because the recent biofuel push was a clusterfuck, doesn't mean that there isn't potential there).

I point these out because I think all of them have less drawbacks then fossil fuels, nuclear and old-fashioned hydro-electric. Their biggest drawback is that we are still much further down on the learning curve in these areas......going back to some of my original points.

Sure, energy sources such as wind and solar and renewable, but it would take such a large number of wind or solar farms to cover even just our existing energy needs, that they're really not feasible as the sole energy source. Unless the technology changes massively, they are at best a supplemental energy source, not a primary one.

Anyone who doesn't want lower energy costs is crazy, and any feasible alternative energy source I'm all for, but we have to be careful not to eliminate our current energy sources before we've discovered the new one, which is sometimes seems like we as a society lean towards. Higher taxes on fossil fuels won't necessarily make an alternative energy source available any faster, only make our existing energy sources more expensive.

[Claydon]

The Future of Nuclear Power in California
California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these facilities. California's existing nuclear power plants provide a significant amount of California's non-fossil fuel based energy and power but produce significant amounts of spent nuclear fuel. Continued operation of these plants will require substantial investments in replacement steam generators, turbines and other major pieces of equipment, ongoing recruitment and training to maintain an experienced nuclear work force, and accommodation of evolving federal policy regarding nuclear technology, in addition to other requirements.

In June 1976, California enacted legislation directing the California Energy Commission to perform an independent investigation of the nuclear fuel cycle. This investigation was to assess whether the technology to reprocess nuclear fuel rods or to dispose of permanently high-level nuclear waste had been demonstrated, approved and was operational. (See Public Resources Code 25524.1 (a) (1), 25524.1 (b), and 25524.2 (a) for a precise description of the specific findings and conclusions). After extensive public hearings, the Energy Commission determined that it could not make the requisite affirmative findings concerning either reprocessing of nuclear fuel or disposal of high-level waste. This information was published in a report: Status of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing, Spent Fuel Storage and High-level Waste Disposal, Energy Commission publication P102-78-001, January 1978.) As a result, the development of new nuclear energy facilities in California was prohibited by law.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over radiological aspects of nuclear facilities, and, therefore, California is preempted from imposing upon operators of nuclear facilities any regulatory requirements concerning radiation hazards and nuclear safety. California may, however, impose requirements related to other issues. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. State Energy Commission, 461 U.S. 190, 103 S. Ct. 1713 (1983), held that the federal government has preempted the entire field of "radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of a nuclear plant, but that the states retain their traditional responsibility in the field of regulating electrical utilities for determining questions of need, reliability, costs, and other related state concerns."

It has been more than 25 years since the last comprehensive Energy Commission assessment of nuclear power issues. As part of the development of its 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report, the Commission began a comprehensive assessment of the status of currently operating plants in California, the status of federal spent fuel storage/disposal programs and reprocessing, and the potential role of nuclear power in California's energy future. A consultant report from that proceeding is available on the main nuclear page.

(slow clap)

[Distortion]

my opinion on it is short and to the point -
The only way our world will ever have a genuine "green economy" is through significant scientific and technology break throughs that revolutionize how we use energy, untill then, if then comes, the best we can hope for is reduce the damage we are doing or not increase it. So i think the question is what extreme situation will occure first that forces man with no other alternative but to create a new form of energy.

[atoms]

Sure, energy sources such as wind and solar and renewable, but it would take such a large number of wind or solar farms to cover even just our existing energy needs, that they're really not feasible as the sole energy source. Unless the technology changes massively, they are at best a supplemental energy source, not a primary one.

Anyone who doesn't want lower energy costs is crazy, and any feasible alternative energy source I'm all for, but we have to be careful not to eliminate our current energy sources before we've discovered the new one, which is sometimes seems like we as a society lean towards. Higher taxes on fossil fuels won't necessarily make an alternative energy source available any faster, only make our existing energy sources more expensive.

One thing you say I couldn't agree with more. And that is we have to have overlap between current energy sources and new ones. Which would be my biggest argument for acting sooner vs. later, to maximize that time of overlap and to have nice smooth curves of one energy source increasing while the other decreases, with probably a net decrease (because of efficiency, which will hopefully outpace increased demand).

And I think if we think a bit creatively there is more potential for solar and wind. That is, if we had a grid that could handle it (and really we currently don't), it would not need to come from just large wind and solar farms (kind of like are current model, but with wind or solar substituting for hydroelectric or coal fired power) but also decentralized (small windmill and solar on the roof top of large numbers of houses and buildings). There is more potential when the system is decentralized, and we have a model for that with the internet.

But do I think we could get all of electrical needs (and lump transportation under electrical instead of fossil fuel) from increased efficiency and renewable sources?....yes. Maybe not instantly....but it seems like less of a daunting problem than going to the moon. And fossil fuels still might need to be part of that mix for jet and rocket fuel....but that is a lot less demand than what we are currently putting on it.

Best to push these simple, low downside technologies and see how far they can go (neither of us really know....nor does anyone). So back to your original standpoint....I'm not sure who is going to be too against this sort of technology except for the oil companies. This seems to be one area that we can start on (we have started on, but can up our commitment too), because frankly it seems a common area for those concerned about CO2, those concerned about limited fossil fuel, those concerned about fossil fuels relation to national security and those concerned with the United States future in technological development (and as a result economic development).

So let's work on this, while we step back and look at the other issues (cap & trade, etc.)

Agreed?.....let's go tell the president and congress we've got it figured out.

[Nosebuckle]

Perhaps there's one silver lining in all of this greenwashing: goodbye NASCAR

[Distortion]

http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/nascar-boring.jpg

[Yelram]

Going all the way to Claydon's initial post. The green economy thing might have been a bullshit thing for Mr. Pickens, and maybe for others. That does not mean it is not real or necessary.

Our problem is that our system, the capitalism, American style, that we have is not very conducive to being proactive. If you look at the more massive undertakings of this country, (Lunar exploration, Manhattan project, WWII in general, creation of the New Deal era hydroelectric system, the interstate highway system, etc) these projects did not happen within the confines of the market economy. In these cases a larger entity tried to be forward looking to tackle a problem that was beyond what private industry was going to do. If you look at changing our energy infrastructure to a much more "green" (higher efficiency, less fossil fuel dependent, more renewable fuel dependent system) it can definitely be argued that this is a project of similar if not larger scope.

The problem is that if left to the market, it will only be pursued when it becomes economically viable. The problem with that is that it means that instead of being proactive, we become reactive. Instead of developing technologies now, for a smooth transition, we develop technologies only after they become profitable...which means only after fossil fuel prices shoot through the roof because supplies diminish precipitously. This means that we set up a period of soaring energy prices as we make a hasty and inefficient transition, a transition that may be more concerned about keeping the lights on, than what is the best way to keep the lights on. This can lead to a period of economic instability, which can also lead to political instability. Do I mean at home...abroad....depends on where the pinch is being felt the worst.

The problem is that green energy has the potential to be competitive with current energy sources....maybe even cheaper. But that takes an economy of scale that simply does not exist now. And for much of it to really work efficiently, it requires a revamping of the infrastructure system, a daunting and expensive proposition. Then take into account that the political system currently favors fossil fuels, with money, tax breaks, and general support given to the industry in general, and many local projects that are pushed for by congressmen and senators.

It is a bit like the housing bubble. When the bubble is growing, we all want to maximize profits, and ignore those who are shouting warnings. When the bubble bursts, we cry and wonder why no one kept this from happening. The energy bubble could be the same. However, we have more ability to make this a smooth transition....if we take it on. And we should take it on prior to it being a disaster. Kind of like, if you could, would you choose to get paid $100,000 for the next 5 years....and then nothing for the rest of your life.....or would you choose to be paid $50,000 in to perpetuity. Anyone with it spelled out would go for the 50k. But the problem is what if you don't know the time frame....instead of a spelled out 5 years, it's 1-50 years. Suddenly much of human nature takes over and assumes for us it will be 50 years, and we'll die first so let's take the 100k and party.

So the simple answer is do we want to wait until the shit hits the fan.....or move the fan.

This is the kind of stupidity that makes my ears bleed. The housing bubble happened because... GOVERNMENT MADE A MARKET THAT DIDNT EXIST IN REALITY. The same reason the "green energy" bubble is going to burst. Green energy is NOT sustainable, NOT AFFORDABLE and as long as there is something else, it will remain that way. If you would rather shave billions off the GDP to fund these projects, and then billions more to keep them operating, to reduce CO2 production, you are a fucking retard. There is no problem, thats just it, THERES NO FUCKING PROBLEM, the air is cleaner than it was 60 years ago, the water is cleaner, so now they have to make up some invisible boogey man to find a way to steal peoples money. We spent how many years buying GM cars, and GE appliances, and now instead of allowing some other company to become the "green" company, we have GIVEN THEM US TAX DOLLARS TO DO SOMETHING THE MARKET IS NOT CALLING FOR. That is called a fucking scam. I'll give you an example. I install furnaces, I understand energy consumption better than most people, and I understand levels of efficiency as well. The Government is giving a tax credit for a 95% variable speed, 2 stage furnace. Its actually significant enought that we are able to put in that furnace for the same price we put in a 91% furnace, not variable speed, not two stage. This may sound great on paper, but that is fucking 4% efficiency, and when you look at the amount difference in cost the GOV is paying, its ridiculous. At the same time they have removed any sort of electrical price rate break for all electric setups (electric furnace, heat-pump, and electric hot water tank). Heres the kicker, the 95% gas furnace RELEASES CO2!!!, but the Heatpump does not. The heatpump has what is called a "coefficient of production" that is 300%. That means for every 1 unit of heating energy you use, the heatpump is able to draw in 3 from outside down to 25 degrees or so. So basically, the government has pushed people away from using all electric NO EMISSION appliances in favor of a 4% efficiency gain in gas consumption. Not to mention that the parts on the 95% are much more expensive.

[Das Kahlua]

And I think if we think a bit creatively there is more potential for solar and wind. That is, if we had a grid that could handle it (and really we currently don't), it would not need to come from just large wind and solar farms (kind of like are current model, but with wind or solar substituting for hydroelectric or coal fired power) but also decentralized (small windmill and solar on the roof top of large numbers of houses and buildings). There is more potential when the system is decentralized, and we have a model for that with the internet.

Hate to burst your bubble, but this will absolutely never happen. There are too many wealthy, powerful people who paid a lot of money for a city line view, or ocean view or mountain view, and don't want a whole bunch of windmills on the top of buildings obstructing it. Powerful New England families like the Kennedys have already done their best to prevent wind farms off the Sound where they have vacation homes, and it would be the same in any city in the country. Like prisons or nuclear reactors, there is very much a NIMBY mindset when it comes to wind farms. No way could you spread them over people's property and have them be ok with it.

But do I think we could get all of electrical needs (and lump transportation under electrical instead of fossil fuel) from increased efficiency and renewable sources?....yes. Maybe not instantly....but it seems like less of a daunting problem than going to the moon. And fossil fuels still might need to be part of that mix for jet and rocket fuel....but that is a lot less demand than what we are currently putting on it.

Putting men on the moon requires the cooperation of several thousand people. Changing how the entire country operates requires the cooperation of hundreds of millions of people--how is that less complicated?

Best to push these simple, low downside technologies and see how far they can go (neither of us really know....nor does anyone). So back to your original standpoint....I'm not sure who is going to be too against this sort of technology except for the oil companies. This seems to be one area that we can start on (we have started on, but can up our commitment too), because frankly it seems a common area for those concerned about CO2, those concerned about limited fossil fuel, those concerned about fossil fuels relation to national security and those concerned with the United States future in technological development (and as a result economic development).

Everyone who will have to pay more for the same services or have their lives inconvenienced in anyway will be against this; the average American would have more to lose than Exxon, and thus be more opposed. Obama himself said that programs like 'cap and trade' would "necessarily raise the cost of electricity." Does that sound like something that most people would support?

So let's work on this, while we step back and look at the other issues (cap & trade, etc.)

You want windmills and solar panels, basically the modern-day version of medieval technology, and I want more nuclear reactors and domestic drilling. I still don't see where you would like to start.

[atoms]

Damn, Kahlua....I thought we had something....

Why do you want nuclear reactors and drilling? They might be stop gap measures....but why jump to the stop gap measures when there may be better long term ones. I'm not taking them off the table....but I am saying they appear to me to have more negatives. Not sure where the roof-top solar and windmills is any more visually negative than the rooftop antennas that used to be common in this country. Crappy 50's TV is more important than power.....may be.

And I'm not saying go in like nazis and tell them we're putting something on your roof. You own it....you get the power from it and sell the excess back to the grid. If you don't want to participate....you don't have to....but you'll be paying more than your neighbor who has it. That's what I mean by decentralization.....instead of power having to come from the power company exclusively, it can come from many small sources (and still probably several large sources too). This technology is out there now.....but the cost (per installation), the acceptance, and the grid to handle a decentralized system.....that's what's not out there now.

And maybe your right, maybe people won't ever be willing to pay more....but my fear is that we can pay a little more now, or a lot more later (for any of the many reasons we've already gone over). That is one of the things government is suppose to be better than the average population....long term planning.

Why less daunting than going to the moon.....because a start on a lot of this technology already exists and is decades old. Most of the technology for the moon mission did not exist at the time we decided we were going....and that which did exist, very little went back beyond WWII. So I mean from a technological aspect. As to the social aspect.....

Yelram....always count on you to remove the civility out of a thread....you might have some valid points....but I really don't care for how you presented them. I guess I'll throw you one bone....do you think it is better to be proactive or reactive? Do you think the market will be proactive on its own, with no government incentive? Do you think the government currently offers many incentives to keep the status quo?

[Distortion]

I've always been suprised this concept hasn't been explored more
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/RFenergy_iono.htm

sounds like a solid direction to go in as far as clean energy

[Das Kahlua]

Damn, Kahlua....I thought we had something....

Why do you want nuclear reactors and drilling? They might be stop gap measures....but why jump to the stop gap measures when there may be better long term ones. I'm not taking them off the table....but I am saying they appear to me to have more negatives. Not sure where the roof-top solar and windmills is any more visually negative than the rooftop antennas that used to be common in this country. Crappy 50's TV is more important than power.....may be.

And I'm not saying go in like nazis and tell them we're putting something on your roof. You own it....you get the power from it and sell the excess back to the grid. If you don't want to participate....you don't have to....but you'll be paying more than your neighbor who has it. That's what I mean by decentralization.....instead of power having to come from the power company exclusively, it can come from many small sources (and still probably several large sources too). This technology is out there now.....but the cost (per installation), the acceptance, and the grid to handle a decentralized system.....that's what's not out there now.

And maybe your right, maybe people won't ever be willing to pay more....but my fear is that we can pay a little more now, or a lot more later (for any of the many reasons we've already gone over). That is one of the things government is suppose to be better than the average population....long term planning.

Why less daunting than going to the moon.....because a start on a lot of this technology already exists and is decades old. Most of the technology for the moon mission did not exist at the time we decided we were going....and that which did exist, very little went back beyond WWII. So I mean from a technological aspect. As to the social aspect.....

Yelram....always count on you to remove the civility out of a thread....you might have some valid points....but I really don't care for how you presented them. I guess I'll throw you one bone....do you think it is better to be proactive or reactive? Do you think the market will be proactive on its own, with no government incentive? Do you think the government currently offers many incentives to keep the status quo?

I'm certainly not opposed to working towards a middle ground that the majority of people can be happy with, and I'm not saying that I am opposed to using windmills or solar panels, but I want our country's energy to be anchored in proven energy sources, not something that we hope will work.

[Debo]

It is gonna happen. However, with the impetus of sky-high gas prices gone for now, it will proceed slowly. It will take a shock -- like the oil embargo of the early-1970s -- to get people off their duffs. For those of you too young to have experienced it, that embargo led to the development of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. It was only with the plentiful and cheap gas over the past twenty years that has resulted in people again favoring big cars.

The wind farms Claydon saw in Texas, I have seen in Canada. It is a matter of paying for the infrastructure, so until gas spikes again, the amount of investment will remain relatively-low.

Ummm, we just had a major oil shock over the past 18 or so months. People started to change their behavior and then gas went down again.

From my perspective, the government has to be involved if we are going to change because they regulate the energy market. By law there are barriers to entry that cannot be worked around. If these barriers did not exist, then new, viable techologies could be brought to the market.

To Claydon: We don't need a Manhattan style project. That is just dumb. Half of it would be pissed away on God knows what. And the other half would be paid out to politically connected firms, not the most efficient firms. There is already plenty of PE/VC money going into alternative energy. These entreprenuers have billions on the line. How much is a viable biomass combustion engine worth? I would say billions.

Popular Mechanics breaks down the numbers on alternative fuels here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html

And a newer article here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4277305.html

A good example of what happens when the government sticks its head into the energy market is the ethanol debacle. Which is hated by everyone except for the farm lobby. Hell, even the greens hate it. This (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116985512034389563.html) article is a bit old, but it does a good job summing up the problem.

The Economist also kicks ethanol in the balls:

Advanced biofuels
Ethanol, schmethanol

Sep 27th 2007 | EMERYVILLE, REDWOOD CITY AND SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA
From The Economist print edition
Everyone seems to think that ethanol is a good way to make cars greener. Everyone is wrong


Illustration by Stephen Jeffreyhttp://media.economist.com/images/20070929/D3907ST1.jpg
SOMETIMES you do things simply because you know how to. People have known how to make ethanol since the dawn of civilisation, if not before. Take some sugary liquid. Add yeast. Wait. They have also known for a thousand years how to get that ethanol out of the formerly sugary liquid and into a more or less pure form. You heat it up, catch the vapour that emanates, and cool that vapour down until it liquefies.


The result burns. And when Henry Ford was experimenting with car engines a century ago, he tried ethanol out as a fuel. But he rejected it—and for good reason. The amount of heat you get from burning a litre of ethanol is a third less than that from a litre of petrol. What is more, it absorbs water from the atmosphere. Unless it is mixed with some other fuel, such as petrol, the result is corrosion that can wreck an engine's seals in a couple of years. So why is ethanol suddenly back in fashion? That is the question many biotechnologists in America have recently asked themselves.
<a href=&quot;http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3866/3/0/%2a/z%3B215846626%3B0-0%3B6%3B31658731%3B4307-300/250%3B31946587/31964463/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/DWA/go/157930161/direct/01/6179921&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;><img border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://view.atdmt.com/DWA/view/157930161/direct/01/6179921&quot; /></a><a href=&quot;http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/web.economist.com/all_articles;nav=science_and_technology_v_all_scie nce_and_technology;audience_topic=malaria;audience _channel=innovation;!c=codexisinc;!c=9861379;pos=m pu_left;tile=4;sz=350x300,336x236,300x250,250x250; ord=512104388?&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;><img src=&quot;http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/web.economist.com/all_articles;nav=science_and_technology_v_all_scie nce_and_technology;audience_topic=malaria;audience _channel=innovation;!c=codexisinc;!c=9861379;pos=m pu_left;tile=4;sz=350x300,336x236,300x250,250x250; ord=512104388?&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;300&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;></a>




The obvious answer is that, being derived from plants, ethanol is “green”. The carbon dioxide produced by burning it was recently in the atmosphere. Putting that CO2 back into the air can therefore have no adverse effect on the climate. But although that is true, the real reason ethanol has become the preferred green substitute for petrol is that people know how to make it—that, and the subsidies now available to America's maize farmers to produce the necessary feedstock. Yet such things do not stop ethanol from being a lousy fuel. To solve that, the biotechnologists argue, you need to make a better fuel that is equally green. Which is what they are trying to do.
Designer petrol

The first step on the road has been butanol. This is also a type of alcohol that can be made by fermenting sugar (though the fermentation is done by a species of bacterium rather than by yeast), and it has some advantages over ethanol. It has more carbon atoms in its molecules (four, instead of two), which means more energy per litre—though it is still only 85% as rich as petrol. It also has a lower tendency to absorb water from the atmosphere.


A joint venture between DuPont, a large American chemical company, and BP, a British energy firm, has worked out how to industrialise the process of making biobutanol, as the chemical is commonly known when it is the product of fermentation. Although BP plans to start selling the stuff in the next few weeks (mixed with petrol, to start with), the truth is that butanol is not all that much better than ethanol. The interesting activity is elsewhere.


One route might be to go for yet-larger (and thus energy-richer) alcohol molecules. Any simple alcohol is composed of a number of carbon and hydrogen atoms (like a hydrocarbon such as petrol) together with a single oxygen atom. In practice, this game of topping up the carbon content to make a better fuel stops with octanol (eight carbon atoms) as anything bigger tends to freeze at temperatures that might be encountered in winter. But living things are familiar with alcohols. Their enzymes are geared up to cope with them. This makes the biotechnologists' task that much easier.


The idea of engineering enzymes to make octanol was what first brought Codexis, a small biotechnology firm based in Redwood City, California, into the field. Codexis's technology works with pharmaceutical precision—indeed, one of its main commercial products is the enzyme system for making the chemical precursor to Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering drug that is marketed by Pfizer. Codexis controls most of the important patents for what is known as molecular evolution. This designs enzymes in the way that normal evolution designs organisms. It creates lots of variations on a theme, throws away the ones it does not want, and shuffles the rest in a process akin to sex. It then repeats the process on the survivors until something useful emerges—though, unlike natural evolution, there is a bit of intelligent design in the process, too. The result, according to Codexis's boss, Alan Shaw, is enzymes that can perform chemical transformations unknown in nature.


Dr Shaw, however, is no longer so interested in octanol as a biofuel. Like two other, nearby firms, he is now focusing Codexis's attention on molecules even more chemically similar to petrol. The twist that Codexis brings is that unlike petrol, of which each batch from the refinery is chemically different from the others (because the crude oil from which it is derived is an arbitrary mixture of hydrocarbon molecules), biopetrol could be turned out exactly the same, again and again, and thus designed to have the optimal mixture of properties required of a motor fuel.
Exactly which molecules Codexis is most interested in these days, Dr Shaw is not yet willing to say. But Amyris Biotechnologies, which is also based in California, in Emeryville, and which also started by dabbling in drugs (in its case an antimalarial medicine called artemisinin), is slightly more forthcoming. Under the guidance of its founder Jay Keasling, it has been working on a type of isoprenoid (a class of chemicals that include rubber).
Unlike Codexis, which deals in purified enzymes, Amyris employs a technique called synthetic biology, which turns living organisms into chemical reactors by assembling novel biochemical pathways within them.



Dr Keasling and his colleagues scour the world for suitable enzymes, tweak them to make them work better, then sew the genes for the tweaked enzymes into a bacterium that thus turns out the desired product. That was how they produced artemisinin, which is also an isoprenoid.
Isoprenoids have the advantage that, like alcohols, they are part of the natural biochemistry of many organisms. Enzymes to handle them are thus easy to come by. They have the additional advantage that some are pure hydrocarbons, like petrol. With a little judicious searching, Amyris thinks it has come up with isoprenoids that have the right characteristics to substitute for petrol.


The third Californian firm in the business, LS9 of San Carlos, is cutting to the chase. If petrol is what is wanted, petrol is what will be delivered. And diesel, too, although in this case the product is actually biodiesel, which is in some ways superior to the petroleum-based stuff.


LS9 also uses synthetic biology, but it has concentrated on controlling the pathways that make fatty acids. Like alcohols, fatty acids are molecules that have lots of hydrogen and carbon atoms, and a small amount of oxygen (in their case two oxygen atoms, rather than one). Plant oils consist of fatty acids combined with glycerol—and these fatty acids (for example, those from palm oil) are the main raw material for the biodiesel already sold today.


LS9 has used its technology to turn microbes into factories for fatty acids containing between eight and 20 carbon atoms—the optimal number for biodiesel. But it also plans to make what it calls “biocrude”. In this case the fatty acids would have 18-30 carbon atoms, and the final stage of the synthetic pathway would clip off the oxygen atoms to create pure hydrocarbons. This biocrude could be fed directly into existing oil refineries, without any need to modify them.


These firms, however, have one other competitor. His name is Craig Venter. Dr Venter, a veteran of biotechnological scraps ranging from gene patenting to the private human-genome project, has been interested in bioenergy for a long time. To start with, it was hydrogen that caught his eye, then methane—both of which are natural bacterial products. But now that eye is shifting towards liquid fuels. His company, modestly named Synthetic Genomics (and based, unlike the others, on the east side of America, in Rockville, Maryland), is reluctant to discuss details, but Dr Venter, too, is taken with the pharmaceutical analogy. Indeed, he goes as far as to posit the idea of clinical trials for biofuels—presumably pitting one against another, perhaps with petroleum-based products acting as the control, and without the drivers knowing which was which.


Whether biofuels will ever be competitive with fossil fuels remains to be seen. That will depend on a mixture of economics and politics. But the political rush to back ethanol, just because it is green and people have heard of it, is a mistake. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and see which one wins Dr Venter's Grand Prix.


A brief history of our fight with "energy independance":


Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage

30 years of presidential futility and failure

Ronald Bailey (http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html) | July 21, 2004

President Bush and his Democratic opponent John Kerry are both for "energy independence"—like every other president for a generation. That elusive, but ultimately pointless, quest has been a central feature in American politics and policy for the past 30 years, ever since the October 1973 embargo on oil exports to the United States launched by Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, and Libya.


By January 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 per barrel. In response to the embargo, President Richard Nixon did lots of counterproductive things, including imposing oil price controls and lowering highway speed limits. Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." (Automobile aside: Even before the oil embargo, in 1970, Nixon proclaimed in an environmental message to Congress: "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years.")


President Gerald Ford moved the date for achieving American energy independence back to 1985. (Auto Aside: Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which set federal standards for energy efficiency in new cars for the first time.)


President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html) In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis.


In late 1978, the beginning of the Iranian revolution caused a shortfall in oil exports, and prices doubled over the next couple of years. Carter, wearing a sweater on national television, urged Americans to turn down their thermostats. "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977—never," Carter declared in his nationally televised speech on July 15, 1979.


He proposed a sweeping $142 billion energy plan which would achieve energy independence by 1990. Part of his plan included the "creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000." Carter imposed an import quota of 8.5 million barrels of oil per day and created the $20 billion Synfuels program, which was supposed to produce 2.5 million barrels of synthetic fuels per day by 1990. To his credit, Carter did begin to dismantle Nixon's crude oil price controls. (Auto aside: In his 1979 speech Carter warned: Citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.)
In 1991, in the prelude to the First Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush announced a hodgepodge of proposals as a national energy strategy (http://www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/b17.htm). Naturally one of his strategy's guiding principles was "reducing our dependence on foreign oil." (Auto aside: President Bush, meeting with representatives of the "Big Three" automakers, announced a jointly funded U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium—a $260 million research project to develop lightweight battery system for electric vehicles.)


In 1992, President Bill Clinton proposed a BTU tax on fossil fuels to raise money to reduce the deficit. Clinton's tax proposal would have put a levy on natural gas, coal, and nuclear power of 25.7 cents per million British thermal units. Crude oil would have been taxed at 59.9 cents per million BTU to discourage dependence on foreign oil. The crude oil BTU tax would have raised the price of a barrel of oil by about $3.50, and would have cost the average family between $200 to $400 annually. In 1996, Clinton proposed a comprehensive energy plan that was completely ignored by the Republican-controlled Congress. (Auto aside: In 1993, Clinton launched the $1 billion Partnership for New Generation Vehicles (http://www.greenscissors.org/energy/pngv.htm) with the Big Three automakers, aiming to produce a prototype car that was three times more fuel efficient than conventional vehicles by 2004.)


California experienced a series of rolling blackouts in the first months of George W. Bush's administration. A national energy task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney notoriously devised a national energy policy, released in May 2001. The task force described America's energy situation in stark terms: "America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. . . . A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation's energy crisis."
"What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America," said Bush in May 2001. "We can do a better job in conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more supply." He added, "We can't conserve our way to energy independence."
Nevertheless, George W. Bush repeated recent presidential history by insisting, in his 2003 State of the Union (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) address, that one of his administration's goals was "to promote energy independence for our country." (Auto aside: In that speech, Bush announced his $1.2 billion FreedomCar (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presidents_initiative.html) proposal to develop hydrogen fueled vehicles.)


John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, says he too has a plan for energy independence. "It's time to make energy independence a national priority—and to put in place a plan that frees our nation from the grip of Mideast oil in the next ten years," he intones in a campaign ad (http://www.bushout.tv/archives/376.html).


Among other things, Kerry would retool Gerry Ford's automotive fuel economy standards by raising them to as high as 36 miles per gallon. He would also require that 20 percent of electricity generation come from renewable energy sources by 2020—reminiscent of Carter's bold 1980 plan to supply 20 percent of America's energy by 2000 using solar energy. (Kerry's plan would also doubtless utterly fail to meet its goal, as with Carter's plan and all the other bits of energy planning political hubris mentioned in this article.)


So, is there any real difference between Bush and Kerry on energy policy? Not really. "Both believe that at the end of the policy rainbow is energy independence, and they are willing to move heaven and earth to get there. Both are convinced we need government intervention in energy markets," said Jerry Taylor, the Cato Institute's director of natural resource studies, in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13900-2004Jun3.html). "The difference is emphasis, not policy."
Bush and Kerry should take a lesson from the one president who refused to meddle extensively in energy markets—Ronald Reagan. In January 1981, on the day he became president, Reagan ended the remaining federal regulations on domestic oil supplies and prices, allowing oil prices for the first time since 1971 to fall and rise with world market levels. In December 1985, Reagan signed legislation dismantling the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corp. What happened when all these government attempts to manage our energy supply were cruelly killed? Oil prices dropped (http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw210.shtml) from their peak of $37 per barrel in 1981 to less than $14 per barrel in 1986.


Reagan understood that for most Americans lower gasoline prices and lower home electric bills are all the energy independence they want or need.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/34845.html

The "Green Revolution" is in its inflant stages right now. One day, biomass, ethanol (sugar based, not corn) and other sources of energy will be viable. But today is not that day. For now, we need more oil and more natural gas to buy us time until our saving grace is found.

[Debo]

Going all the way to Claydon's initial post. The green economy thing might have been a bullshit thing for Mr. Pickens, and maybe for others. That does not mean it is not real or necessary.

Our problem is that our system, the capitalism, American style, that we have is not very conducive to being proactive. If you look at the more massive undertakings of this country, (Lunar exploration, Manhattan project, WWII in general, creation of the New Deal era hydroelectric system, the interstate highway system, etc) these projects did not happen within the confines of the market economy. In these cases a larger entity tried to be forward looking to tackle a problem that was beyond what private industry was going to do. If you look at changing our energy infrastructure to a much more "green" (higher efficiency, less fossil fuel dependent, more renewable fuel dependent system) it can definitely be argued that this is a project of similar if not larger scope.

The problem is that if left to the market, it will only be pursued when it becomes economically viable. The problem with that is that it means that instead of being proactive, we become reactive. Instead of developing technologies now, for a smooth transition, we develop technologies only after they become profitable...which means only after fossil fuel prices shoot through the roof because supplies diminish precipitously. This means that we set up a period of soaring energy prices as we make a hasty and inefficient transition, a transition that may be more concerned about keeping the lights on, than what is the best way to keep the lights on. This can lead to a period of economic instability, which can also lead to political instability. Do I mean at home...abroad....depends on where the pinch is being felt the worst.

The problem is that green energy has the potential to be competitive with current energy sources....maybe even cheaper. But that takes an economy of scale that simply does not exist now. And for much of it to really work efficiently, it requires a revamping of the infrastructure system, a daunting and expensive proposition. Then take into account that the political system currently favors fossil fuels, with money, tax breaks, and general support given to the industry in general, and many local projects that are pushed for by congressmen and senators.

It is a bit like the housing bubble. When the bubble is growing, we all want to maximize profits, and ignore those who are shouting warnings. When the bubble bursts, we cry and wonder why no one kept this from happening. The energy bubble could be the same. However, we have more ability to make this a smooth transition....if we take it on. And we should take it on prior to it being a disaster. Kind of like, if you could, would you choose to get paid $100,000 for the next 5 years....and then nothing for the rest of your life.....or would you choose to be paid $50,000 in to perpetuity. Anyone with it spelled out would go for the 50k. But the problem is what if you don't know the time frame....instead of a spelled out 5 years, it's 1-50 years. Suddenly much of human nature takes over and assumes for us it will be 50 years, and we'll die first so let's take the 100k and party.

So the simple answer is do we want to wait until the shit hits the fan.....or move the fan.

Creative Destruction. If I create a better wheel, I can put your wheel factory out of business. Along the same lines: If I can create an energy source that is cheaper and more efficient than the one that is in place, I win and you lose.

The establishment wants more regulations because it creates barriers to entry. If you want to spur innovation you can either: A.) Remove the barriers to entry or B.) Tax the shit out of gas and force us to shift to something else (This is never going to happen. The fastest way out of DC is a massive gasoline tax. There isn't a politician out there willing to vote for this).

If you are in favor of taxing gas, what do you want to replace it with?

[Rover]

...but I really don't care for how you presented them. I guess I'll throw you one bone....do you think it is better to be proactive or reactive? Do you think the market will be proactive on its own, with no government incentive? Do you think the government currently offers many incentives to keep the status quo?The proactive versus reactive argument for alternative energy is a bullshit choice. We (meaning the human race) have plenty of time to solve this in the future. We don't need a solution tomorrow, next year, next century or next millenium. There's actually a bunch of energy sitting under the ground. Coal, natural gas, oil, uranium reserves are abundant enough for us to continue wasting electricity for years.

Who knows what new technology tomorrow is going to bring. Why not let a more technologically advanced civilization solve this problem? It's like asking the Aztecs to develop a fast mode of international travel. Or the Normans to invent a faster way to process commerce and information exchange between individual peoples, corporations, and countries.

Statistically speaking, we are in dire need of an asteroid/comet deflecting mechanism of some sort. Should we be proactive and develop one? I mean actually develop one, not have a pointy head in MIT theorize on what happens if we nuke an asteroid.

How ridiculous would it be if the government set up a massive tax scheme (cap and trade) to ostensibly fund a strawman, except this time it wasn't global warming reduction through alternative energy but instead an intragalactic debris deflection system?

My point? Who fucking knows what tomorrow brings, why cripple our economy with taxes and regulations for a problem that won't be solved in my lifetime? I would take great pleasure in, if after a several decades we've set up massive alternative fuel infrastructure, only to discover our "energy problem" could only be solved by doing X, Y, and Z.

And if alternative energy zealots were actually interested in cheap, clean energy, there'd be about 300 hundred more nuclear power plants in this country than there are.

PS: Wind farms are ugly and kill birds. Why doesn't anybody care about the fucking birds anymore?

[atoms]

Rover,

If I follow, it is as or more statistically likely that we will be hit by an asteroid or comet than run out of fossil/radioactive fuels. I would love to see the scientific data to back that up.

Actually doing some reading on nuclear power. It seems like there is a lot of potential for much higher efficiencies than we now see (and nuclear power plants efficiency is staggering compared to fossil fuels). Nuclear power as it is today has enough downsides for it not to seem like a natural go to fuel (not ruling it out....just saying that it isn't so without downsides that I would abandon all r&d in solar, wind, higher fossil fuel efficiency (hybrid engines for example), geothermal...etc.). However, there are definitely nuclear technologies out there that may be "the magic bullet". Good R&D should be very open.

Not sure how you think problems get solved. The apple falling on Newton's head is not how we normally gain our scientific insights. Normally they come from scientists working very hard to understand and advance science.

We just need to continue to foster a culture that is working to solve these problems. I think you are right...we can and will solve them...much as we solved many of our other issues on this world. That solution can either be smooth or not. I'm not proposing anything beyond what we have put in to past scientific endeavors.

As to Debo's comments. I agree....let's remove some of the barriers to entry. Does that mean adding other barriers to the status quo (artificially driving the price of oil up). Well it is a possibility....but, let's start with removing current barriers to "alternative" fuels and removing some of the incentivising we currently have for fossil fuels (which often has a bit of the smell of pork). I'd see where that got us, as well as having a realistic assessment of what any alternative energy source can provide in the short term, before bending the market the other way.

My main question for you Debo, back to kind of my responses to Tockit. Is should the government have a role in the R&D. Not Manhattan project (large totally government controlled project with an extreme sense of urgency). But more in lines of much of the R&D that led to integrated circuits and computers, that was an off shoot of the space program. As I spelled out in my posts....there is a strong precedent of government/private cooperation in promotion of effective scientific research. Am I deluded about this? And is this situation comparable?

[Rover]

Rover,

If I follow, it is as or more statistically likely that we will be hit by an asteroid or comet than run out of fossil/radioactive fuels. I would love to see the scientific data to back that up.You should read it again. Nowhere do I say that we are more likely to hit by an asteroid than run out of fossil fuel. I simply said that if we're going to be proactive about things we should really be proactive about them. Being hit by an asteroid is a practical certainty. But if the government went around raising funds through massive taxes to fund an asteroid deflection device people would scream murder.

Let the people that are going to be affected by the problem solve the problem. There is enough energy in the ground to get us through this millenium and well into the next. Worrying about a problem that might not ever happen is stupid and a waste of time and resources.

A lot can happen in a thousand years. For one, we could all be wiped out by a comet impact.

Actually doing some reading on nuclear power. It seems like there is a lot of potential for much higher efficiencies than we now see (and nuclear power plants efficiency is staggering compared to fossil fuels). Nuclear power as it is today has enough downsides for it not to seem like a natural go to fuel (not ruling it out....just saying that it isn't so without downsides that I would abandon all r&d in solar, wind, higher fossil fuel efficiency (hybrid engines for example), geothermal...etc.). However, there are definitely nuclear technologies out there that may be "the magic bullet". Good R&D should be very open.The downsides are that this one time a cheaply made Soviet piece of shit blew up, and another time these idiots were running a reactor on 3 mile island. And environmentalists seized on those as the status quo for nuclear power.

Not sure how you think problems get solved. The apple falling on Newton's head is not how we normally gain our scientific insights. Normally they come from scientists working very hard to understand and advance science.Problems are best solved through need-based incentives. Like, I need to invent things, so hold on while I invent Calculus. Or I need to make more cars faster and cheaper, so I think I'll invent an assembly line.

When there is a need for an alternative energy it will be developed and be economically viable all on its own. Do you really think the world will just grind itself to a halt because we're too stupid to realize that we need an energy source beyond the fire in our cave? Most people have a good understanding of finite resources. Once the time frame for our energy supply is measured in single years and not milleniums we'll have the proper incentive to come up with something.

[Das Kahlua]

Problems are best solved through need-based incentives. Like, I need to invent things, so hold on while I invent Calculus. Or I need to make more cars faster and cheaper, so I think I'll invent an assembly line.

When there is a need for an alternative energy it will be developed and be economically viable all on its own. Do you really think the world will just grind itself to a halt because we're too stupid to realize that we need an energy source beyond the fire in our cave? Most people have a good understanding of finite resources. Once the time frame for our energy supply is measured in single years and not milleniums we'll have the proper incentive to come up with something.

Be careful with that kind of talk, that's the motivation for all these asshats who want to jack fuel prices through the roof to force people into alternatives.

[HAWK]

That's equally bullshit.

[freegood]

I wonder what'd happen if faux libertarians today lived in the 50s. We'd still be talking about building a highway system and some newfangled computer network thingamajig.

We didn't need those back then either. They just came out magically from my unborn butt.

[atoms]

Freegood....thanks for saving me the post.....I think I'm done for this week.

I wonder what'd happen if faux libertarians today lived in the 50s. We'd still be talking about building a highway system and some newfangled computer network thingamajig.

We didn't need those back then either. They just came out magically from my unborn butt.

[Das Kahlua]

I wonder what'd happen if faux libertarians today lived in the 50s. We'd still be talking about building a highway system and some newfangled computer network thingamajig.

We didn't need those back then either. They just came out magically from my unborn butt.

Right, cause there's been anything that even somewhat resembles an organized effort to curtail any kind of spending in Washington.

Your rhetoric aside, I have yet to meet anyone who is opposed to exploring the future of energy in any form of alternative fuels or money for research to discover what might be a future fuel source. There is a world of difference, however, between that and prematurely eliminating proven fuel sources for those that are yet to be proven, or taxing the average American into bankruptcy, especially when they're already struggling, to force them into using alternative fuel sources that either don't yet exist or aren't practical?

How would the modern day energy obstructionists have survived in the 1950s metaphor you presented, if they tried to prevent roads from being built because of the environmental impact, or prevented computers from being manufactured because there might someday be a better computer, so why settle for one not as good.

[atoms]

Kahlua,

Don't know if you and freegood have a lot of history....because you are reading a hell of a lot more into his post than I am.

As to anyone who doesn't want to put any money and effort into alternative fuels....I'd like you to meet Rover. He's up the way about 6 posts. He says why waste our time on this....were good for a millennium.

Just to make my position clear....I have not said to abandon anything. Just to put our collective will (money and research) into the effort for the next sources of energy. To create a culture of innovation, much like we had as an outgrowth of the cold war and space program (the 50's of Freegood's post). And I'm not sure why the model from that time, that is, private research, with government support, is not also a good one for these times. If it is not....I'm open to alternatives.

As to the obstructionists of today, vs then.....man it sucks doesn't it. But, unless you have a way to eliminate that from our current culture, that is just a reason to get going now, vs. later, because the process will be inherently less streamlined. I don't like it....but do we just say fuck it because it's going to be more of a pain in the ass than it once might have been?

[Das Kahlua]

Kahlua,

Don't know if you and freegood have a lot of history....because you are reading a hell of a lot more into his post than I am.

As to anyone who doesn't want to put any money and effort into alternative fuels....I'd like you to meet Rover. He's up the way about 6 posts. He says why waste our time on this....were good for a millennium.

Just to make my position clear....I have not said to abandon anything. Just to put our collective will (money and research) into the effort for the next sources of energy. To create a culture of innovation, much like we had as an outgrowth of the cold war and space program (the 50's of Freegood's post). And I'm not sure why the model from that time, that is, private research, with government support, is not also a good one for these times. If it is not....I'm open to alternatives.

As to the obstructionists of today, vs then.....man it sucks doesn't it. But, unless you have a way to eliminate that from our current culture, that is just a reason to get going now, vs. later, because the process will be inherently less streamlined. I don't like it....but do we just say fuck it because it's going to be more of a pain in the ass than it once might have been?

And I don't disagree with you, we do need innovation, and possibly some government support if the private sector can't do it alone, I just am wary of the habit of the government to overdo everything it starts. The mindset that it's not enough to encourage future fuel sources, but it also has to discourage the sources we're currently using; it's not enough to give the public choices, it has to try and force their hands, if not eliminate some options. Just refer back to where freegood proposed that conventional light bulbs should be banned.

As for Rover, he made a very good point that if alternative were really so viable, they wouldn't need government subsidies, and if they do need government subsidies, they won't be cost efficient for our society.

[Rover]

As to anyone who doesn't want to put any money and effort into alternative fuels....I'd like you to meet Rover. He's up the way about 6 posts. He says why waste our time on this....were good for a millennium.Not none, but I certainly don't want to fund it through cap and trade.

And the 50's example of the interstate doesn't work to counter my point. There were millions of cars on the road and it became economically efficient to drive goods and stuff across the country. The country's economy was in desperate need of a system that efficiently moved things across the country. When technology catches up to the point where we can build efficient wind farms or solar farms, then the government can spend whatever they want on it.

The 50's example that would correlate to my position is if Eisenhower dumped billions of dollars into inventing roads or, since roads already existed, skyways and flying cars.

There's just no need to jump energy generations. We have uranium that produces energy that is clean. It'd be different if we'd exhausted all energy resources and were on the verge of catastrophy. But we aren't.

[Debo]

I wonder what'd happen if faux libertarians today lived in the 50s. We'd still be talking about building a highway system and some newfangled computer network thingamajig.

We didn't need those back then either. They just came out magically from my unborn butt.

This is complete bullshit. I have never seen even the most staunch Libertarian argue that we should have a series of private toll road connecting the country. This (http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2008/07/infrastructure.html) is the only post that I can find on Cafe Hayek (Probably the most Libertarian blog on the planet) that discusses roads. And his point is that the private sector is capable of filling the gap when the government fails to provide the most basic of services. Furthermore, the highway system was built as part of Eisenhower's Cold War strategy. On every highway, there is a one-mile stretch, after every four miles, that is straight so military planes can land on them if they need to. It wasn't the primary reason for building the highway system, but it played a part in getting it through Congress.

And the internet was designed by the military because they wanted a decentralized communication network during the cold war. The wanted a network that would work even if one of our major cities was nuked. They never planned on applying it to the business world. It just so happens that it is a great tool that enhances productivity.

If you are going to make a case for government intervention in the market, then just do it and leave the bullshit-gotcha-I'm trying to prove that the other side is a hypocrite because my argument is weak - posts at home.

[Yelram]

Kahlua,

Don't know if you and freegood have a lot of history....because you are reading a hell of a lot more into his post than I am.

As to anyone who doesn't want to put any money and effort into alternative fuels....I'd like you to meet Rover. He's up the way about 6 posts. He says why waste our time on this....were good for a millennium.

Just to make my position clear....I have not said to abandon anything. Just to put our collective will (money and research) into the effort for the next sources of energy. To create a culture of innovation, much like we had as an outgrowth of the cold war and space program (the 50's of Freegood's post). And I'm not sure why the model from that time, that is, private research, with government support, is not also a good one for these times. If it is not....I'm open to alternatives.

As to the obstructionists of today, vs then.....man it sucks doesn't it. But, unless you have a way to eliminate that from our current culture, that is just a reason to get going now, vs. later, because the process will be inherently less streamlined. I don't like it....but do we just say fuck it because it's going to be more of a pain in the ass than it once might have been?


Heres your problem, when I hear "we" I mean "we the people", not necessarily "we the government". You feel that, for some reason or another, we need to dump a bunch of money into something that the market will handle when its time. Noone wants to talk about the national debt, or the budget deficit, green energy isnt going to mean fucking anything if we are owned by china. So lets sell out more of our country to china, while at the same time taxing any sort of productive activity (use of fossil fuels) to prevent any GDP growth, sounds like a great way to totally destroy a country.

Proactive solution? To what? Our country has a problem with drilling its own oil, thats the problem. The whole idea that "fossil fuels arent sustainable", when they are the ONLY type of fuel that HAS been sustainable, is a backwards leap of logic. Any new technology that is going to be made will be made by someone driving a gas car, heating their house with gas/oil/electric from coal, or by a company that relies upon the flow of goods and services to be uninterupted. The idea that we have to be "weened" off fossil fuels for our own betterment is more of a problem than anything else.
The country uses currently about 3.75 terawatts, in solar panels that is
12 watts per square foot
The US is 103671742065706 square feet

8.639 trillion solar panels maximum (thats every square inch of land in the country keep in mind)
1000000000000 watts of electricity per terawatt
so 3750000000000 watts used in the US
312500000000 solar panels (or square feet)
Or around 11000-12000 sq miles
Thats a piece of land the size of Maryland.

Or you could use 44000 watts that an average home uses if you prefer some sort of "decentralized" scheme.
3666 square feet for each household.

Now in the country, that wouldnt be that big of a deal, but in the city, you'll be hard pressed to find 3666 empty square feet for each family to put in solar panels. Its hard enough to find a fucking parking place.

The future is algal biodiesel, but that wont be what the government subsidizes, and the media(keep in mind who owns most of the media) endorses. If you want a go-between, AB is IT.

[Mister Mobius]

Yes...

[LethalStrike]

The world comes to an end in 2012 so what's the difference? LOL

[Rusty S]

its a scam

[Mecha]

Yes...

/agree