CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
(04-12-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]100% intelligent. Because the benefit of the government is that you can more easily fund technology with high capital and research costs when it is in its infancy because you do not need to see a direct ROI. Then you eventually can have private industries take over and unleash the full potential of that technology. For example, without NASA, I doubt you see all of the private space flight companies you do today.
I think we may be on different pages about pushing though, and what that means.
I think it is intelligent to fully fund research and development into the possible technologies of the future, and to give funding to the scientists who want to be on the forefront of science and technology development.
But pushing for the nonviable does not mean ignoring and completely throwing out conventional energy sources - which is what I stated in my original response. You can still at least create an environment that is no unduly burdensome to those technologies. The Obama administration really only did that to coal, which is one technology that is not really in our best interests to keep pursuing.
They did not make it unduly burdensome to continue to develop oil and gas resources, and I know that because we are still producing a crap ton of it. They may have increased the burden, but not to an extent that it was causing the industry to flounder (but if you can provide evidence of that, I'll listen).

So as long as the Obama administration did not drive the industry into bankruptcy, their efforts to hassle and harass were all okay? The oil industry survived because of advances in seismic and fracking technology which overcame Obama's efforts to destroy it. Then the lying SOB Obama had the gall to claim responsibility for cheaper energy, reduced reliance on foreign oil, and the economic recovery that those (and not any of Obama's "stimulus" policies) sustained. Now, that recovery was very weak, IMO because Obama's "stimulus" efforts were actually counterproductive. So the energy industry actually overcame Obama's efforts to screw the American public on two fronts.

And to me, "nonviable" means "not viable." Given the definition, I fail to see how one can justify efforts to force nonviable solutions onto the public.

What should happen is more emphasis on making non-viable options become viable. The approach should include research to find ways to make options viable, experimentation with potentially bible options, and adoption of viable alternatives.

The beauty of what Brazil did is that they focused entirely on vile options with presently available technology, and in so doing managed to get 44% of their vehicle fuel from biofuels. That's the kind of approach that I favor:

Things that are doable now:
1) More nuclear generated electricity. There are risks, for sure, but right now the risk calculus favors nuclear over coal, and things like solar and wind really are not capable of meeting base load needs.
2) Converting trains to electric power. Trains are much easier than cars, because they run on fixed tracks so they don't need to carry their power source with them, but can take it from fixed supply lines.
3) Converting delivery fleets that can easily fuel at a single point to natural gas. We don't have the infrastructure in place to use CNG for everything, but we can certainly use it where the number of required distribution points can be limited.
4) Using sugar cane ethanol, as much as we can produce here and as much as we can import from places like Brazil and Cuba. We could revive the collapsed Cuban sugar cane industry and achieve a significant reduction in oil usage. Doing the same thing throughout Mexico and Central and South America--and possibly West Africa--could also facilitate considerable reductions in our drug and illegal immigration issues by providing viable alternative employment for people in those areas.

Experimentation, particularly to develop scale and infrastructure, two critical areas that those who are in such a rush to get away from fossil fuels all too often fail to weigh properly:
1) Electric cars are not viable yet because of range limitations. But getting them on the road and finding out what works and what doesn't is a critical part of increasing both viability and our ability to scale.
2) Finding ways to use electricity as a prime mover for more applications, as we increase our generation capacity, and finding ways to use natural gas for more internal combustion applications.

Research:
1) Better electric storage. This makes electric cars more viable, and also develops our ability to use solar and wind for base load.
2) Nuclear waste disposal. Why not just do like the French and recycle, until the residue can simply be put back where we found it? Jimmy Carter blocked this with a executive order that can be reversed, just as he blocked growth in our use of relatively clean burning natural gas.
3) Coal gasification and liquefaction. I realize that coal is now the favorite boogeyman, but if we could address these issues, we could turn a plentiful asset into long-term supply of relatively clean energy.

I guess I'm confused by what you define as nonviable, then.
(04-12-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The beauty of what Brazil did is that they focused entirely on vile options with presently available technology, and in so doing managed to get 44% of their vehicle fuel from biofuels. That's the kind of approach that I favor:

Freudian slip? (wink)

Quote:Things that are doable now:
1) More nuclear generated electricity. There are risks, for sure, but right now the risk calculus favors nuclear over coal, and things like solar and wind really are not capable of meeting base load needs.
2) Converting trains to electric power. Trains are much easier than cars, because they run on fixed tracks so they don't need to carry their power source with them, but can take it from fixed supply lines.
3) Converting delivery fleets that can easily fuel at a single point to natural gas. We don't have the infrastructure in place to use CNG for everything, but we can certainly use it where the number of required distribution points can be limited.
4) Using sugar cane ethanol, as much as we can produce here and as much as we can import from places like Brazil and Cuba. We could revive the collapsed Cuban sugar cane industry and achieve a significant reduction in oil usage. Doing the same thing throughout Mexico and Central and South America--and possibly West Africa--could also facilitate considerable reductions in our drug and illegal immigration issues by providing viable alternative employment for people in those areas.

Wow. Are you my doppleganger?

You forgot one thing. Eliminate the cellulostic ethanol programs we have now. Most people don't realize that the corn ethanol program is a net energy sink. The process requires more BTUs (typically from hydrocarbons) than it gives up. I really dont understand (when you take the politics away) why this is an ongoing concern. It's literally like having a negative interest bank account.
(04-12-2017 08:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I'm confused by what you define as nonviable, then.

Something that doesn't work.
(04-12-2017 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The beauty of what Brazil did is that they focused entirely on vile options with presently available technology, and in so doing managed to get 44% of their vehicle fuel from biofuels. That's the kind of approach that I favor:
Freudian slip? (wink)
Quote:Things that are doable now:
1) More nuclear generated electricity. There are risks, for sure, but right now the risk calculus favors nuclear over coal, and things like solar and wind really are not capable of meeting base load needs.
2) Converting trains to electric power. Trains are much easier than cars, because they run on fixed tracks so they don't need to carry their power source with them, but can take it from fixed supply lines.
3) Converting delivery fleets that can easily fuel at a single point to natural gas. We don't have the infrastructure in place to use CNG for everything, but we can certainly use it where the number of required distribution points can be limited.
4) Using sugar cane ethanol, as much as we can produce here and as much as we can import from places like Brazil and Cuba. We could revive the collapsed Cuban sugar cane industry and achieve a significant reduction in oil usage. Doing the same thing throughout Mexico and Central and South America--and possibly West Africa--could also facilitate considerable reductions in our drug and illegal immigration issues by providing viable alternative employment for people in those areas.
Wow. Are you my doppleganger?
You forgot one thing. Eliminate the cellulostic ethanol programs we have now. Most people don't realize that the corn ethanol program is a net energy sink. The process requires more BTUs (typically from hydrocarbons) than it gives up. I really dont understand (when you take the politics away) why this is an ongoing concern. It's literally like having a negative interest bank account.

Iowa kicks off the presidential primary process. Nobody wants to finish last in the first contest. So we have corn ethanol.
(04-13-2017 01:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 08:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I'm confused by what you define as nonviable, then.

Something that doesn't work.

Oh gosh.

I mean what technologies you believe are non-viable.
(04-12-2017 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The beauty of what Brazil did is that they focused entirely on vile options with presently available technology, and in so doing managed to get 44% of their vehicle fuel from biofuels. That's the kind of approach that I favor:

Freudian slip? (wink)

Quote:Things that are doable now:
1) More nuclear generated electricity. There are risks, for sure, but right now the risk calculus favors nuclear over coal, and things like solar and wind really are not capable of meeting base load needs.
2) Converting trains to electric power. Trains are much easier than cars, because they run on fixed tracks so they don't need to carry their power source with them, but can take it from fixed supply lines.
3) Converting delivery fleets that can easily fuel at a single point to natural gas. We don't have the infrastructure in place to use CNG for everything, but we can certainly use it where the number of required distribution points can be limited.
4) Using sugar cane ethanol, as much as we can produce here and as much as we can import from places like Brazil and Cuba. We could revive the collapsed Cuban sugar cane industry and achieve a significant reduction in oil usage. Doing the same thing throughout Mexico and Central and South America--and possibly West Africa--could also facilitate considerable reductions in our drug and illegal immigration issues by providing viable alternative employment for people in those areas.

Wow. Are you my doppleganger?

You forgot one thing. Eliminate the cellulostic ethanol programs we have now. Most people don't realize that the corn ethanol program is a net energy sink. The process requires more BTUs (typically from hydrocarbons) than it gives up. I really dont understand (when you take the politics away) why this is an ongoing concern. It's literally like having a negative interest bank account.

Because of special interests and the fact that we often don't make wholesale energy policy change based off of the scientific data, and rather off what we can sell best to voters.

It's a stupid use of corn. Switchgrass was poised to be a great form of cellulosic ethanol, but I'm not sure whatever happened to the R&D around that.
(04-13-2017 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The beauty of what Brazil did is that they focused entirely on vile options with presently available technology, and in so doing managed to get 44% of their vehicle fuel from biofuels. That's the kind of approach that I favor:

Freudian slip? (wink)

Quote:Things that are doable now:
1) More nuclear generated electricity. There are risks, for sure, but right now the risk calculus favors nuclear over coal, and things like solar and wind really are not capable of meeting base load needs.
2) Converting trains to electric power. Trains are much easier than cars, because they run on fixed tracks so they don't need to carry their power source with them, but can take it from fixed supply lines.
3) Converting delivery fleets that can easily fuel at a single point to natural gas. We don't have the infrastructure in place to use CNG for everything, but we can certainly use it where the number of required distribution points can be limited.
4) Using sugar cane ethanol, as much as we can produce here and as much as we can import from places like Brazil and Cuba. We could revive the collapsed Cuban sugar cane industry and achieve a significant reduction in oil usage. Doing the same thing throughout Mexico and Central and South America--and possibly West Africa--could also facilitate considerable reductions in our drug and illegal immigration issues by providing viable alternative employment for people in those areas.

Wow. Are you my doppleganger?

You forgot one thing. Eliminate the cellulostic ethanol programs we have now. Most people don't realize that the corn ethanol program is a net energy sink. The process requires more BTUs (typically from hydrocarbons) than it gives up. I really dont understand (when you take the politics away) why this is an ongoing concern. It's literally like having a negative interest bank account.

Because of special interests and the fact that we often don't make wholesale energy policy change based off of the scientific data, and rather off what we can sell best to voters.

It's a stupid use of corn. Switchgrass was poised to be a great form of cellulosic ethanol, but I'm not sure whatever happened to the R&D around that.

There must be rip in the fabric of the universe. Something that three of us agree on....
(04-13-2017 08:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The beauty of what Brazil did is that they focused entirely on vile options with presently available technology, and in so doing managed to get 44% of their vehicle fuel from biofuels. That's the kind of approach that I favor:

Freudian slip? (wink)

Quote:Things that are doable now:
1) More nuclear generated electricity. There are risks, for sure, but right now the risk calculus favors nuclear over coal, and things like solar and wind really are not capable of meeting base load needs.
2) Converting trains to electric power. Trains are much easier than cars, because they run on fixed tracks so they don't need to carry their power source with them, but can take it from fixed supply lines.
3) Converting delivery fleets that can easily fuel at a single point to natural gas. We don't have the infrastructure in place to use CNG for everything, but we can certainly use it where the number of required distribution points can be limited.
4) Using sugar cane ethanol, as much as we can produce here and as much as we can import from places like Brazil and Cuba. We could revive the collapsed Cuban sugar cane industry and achieve a significant reduction in oil usage. Doing the same thing throughout Mexico and Central and South America--and possibly West Africa--could also facilitate considerable reductions in our drug and illegal immigration issues by providing viable alternative employment for people in those areas.

Wow. Are you my doppleganger?

You forgot one thing. Eliminate the cellulostic ethanol programs we have now. Most people don't realize that the corn ethanol program is a net energy sink. The process requires more BTUs (typically from hydrocarbons) than it gives up. I really dont understand (when you take the politics away) why this is an ongoing concern. It's literally like having a negative interest bank account.

Because of special interests and the fact that we often don't make wholesale energy policy change based off of the scientific data, and rather off what we can sell best to voters.

It's a stupid use of corn. Switchgrass was poised to be a great form of cellulosic ethanol, but I'm not sure whatever happened to the R&D around that.

There must be rip in the fabric of the universe. Something that three of us agree on....

Haha - you and I did also agree on the Solyndra boogyman being stupid.

I'm realizing that there is likely a lot of stuff we agree upon when it doesn't come to policy and HOW the US would implement said policy, but rather the hard science/facts that create the foundation of a topic.

Owl# hasn't responded yet, but I have a feeling the back and forth we have been having about viable/nonviable isn't really a disagreement, but either a disconnect on what him and I view as nonviable, or the approach we would like to take to address energy issues.

The thing is, what we're talking about now is not energy policy, but energy issues, right? I mean, it's fact at this point that you put in more energy to corn ethanol production than what you get out. That there are better cellulosic materials to use if you go down that route. That alcohol based ethanol (e.g. sugarcane) is an easier biofuel to produce because it's easier/simpler to breakdown those sugars. That nuclear energy is a great baseload energy source, that has a waste problem that needs to be solved. That wind/solar, without sufficient storage capacity, don't cut it when it comes to providing baseload. And so on, and so forth.

To me, having other stances on those core pieces of information would be akin to say, disagreeing that the Earth is a sphere.

However, where we may (not sure if we would though) start to disagree is on the policy associated with those issues, and how one would go about tackling the issues (like handling nuclear waste).
I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...

Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.

I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...

Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.

I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.

Your last point actually hits on how these topics become "political" and we start to diverge on issues.

It's true that sugar cane is a great source for biofuel production. However, there are negative externalities associated with its use that should be taken into consideration. And it is the discussion of how much consideration and how far out we should take those externalities that cause people to disagree.
(04-13-2017 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...

Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.

I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.

Your last point actually hits on how these topics become "political" and we start to diverge on issues.

It's true that sugar cane is a great source for biofuel production. However, there are negative externalities associated with its use that should be taken into consideration. And it is the discussion of how much consideration and how far out we should take those externalities that cause people to disagree.

I don't think it is a given that we must select some type of biofuel and start changing to it. But if you accept that as a given, then yes, the discussion would center on what kind and how much.
(04-13-2017 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...

Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.

I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.

Your last point actually hits on how these topics become "political" and we start to diverge on issues.

It's true that sugar cane is a great source for biofuel production. However, there are negative externalities associated with its use that should be taken into consideration. And it is the discussion of how much consideration and how far out we should take those externalities that cause people to disagree.

I don't think it is a given that we must select some type of biofuel and start changing to it. But if you accept that as a given, then yes, the discussion would center on what kind and how much.

I didn't even touch on that. I was simply talking about sugarcane being a great source for biofuel production.

But you did provide an excellent example of how people very quickly can start disagreeing about these topics, once you wade into implementation/policy. Just because I stated it is a great source for biofuel was not me endorsing biofuel and suggesting we adjust out infrastructure to accommodate it.
(04-13-2017 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...

Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.

I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.

Your last point actually hits on how these topics become "political" and we start to diverge on issues.

It's true that sugar cane is a great source for biofuel production. However, there are negative externalities associated with its use that should be taken into consideration. And it is the discussion of how much consideration and how far out we should take those externalities that cause people to disagree.

I don't think it is a given that we must select some type of biofuel and start changing to it. But if you accept that as a given, then yes, the discussion would center on what kind and how much.

I didn't even touch on that. I was simply talking about sugarcane being a great source for biofuel production.

But you did provide an excellent example of how people very quickly can start disagreeing about these topics, once you wade into implementation/policy. Just because I stated it is a great source for biofuel was not me endorsing biofuel and suggesting we adjust out infrastructure to accommodate it.

From my understanding, this is what "supply side" economics as envisioned by Gilder was supposed to entail. The creation of wealth from stimulating the supply
of new products and not just the demand for existing ones. For example, "there was no demand for iPhones until Apple invented them."
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...
Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.
I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.

Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.
(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...
Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.
I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.

Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.
My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm

http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/

http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7
(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...
Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.
I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.
Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.
My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.
(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...
Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.
I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.
Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.
My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

I guess I have gotten the impression from national geographic and others that we are losing the Amazon rain forest at the rate of 200 football fields/day, and that sugar cane is the chief culprit, but clearly soybeans and cattle ranching are culprits also.

Still, the ethanol movement is not the domino at the end of the line, but the one at the head.

since I have had nonethanol gas available, I have used nothing else. For those who want to shop for this, there is a web-site: http://www.pure-gas.org

I have nothing against Iowa and Nebraska corn farmers. I would just prefer to see their product made into tortillas and corn flakes. Maybe feed the hungry instead of fueling the green movement.

JMHO.
We are losing the Amazon rain forest, just not to sugar cane.
(04-14-2017 08:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We are losing the Amazon rain forest, just not to sugar cane.

is a significant portion of the loss due to the need/desire to raise some crop for ethanol to mix with petroleum?
(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...
Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.
I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.
Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.
My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?

Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's