An interesting article here about a group that has begun praying that God will intervene to lower gas prices. It is not clear how our souls are better off with cheap gas or if this is the sort of prayer that God answers.
An interesting article here about a group that has begun praying that God will intervene to lower gas prices. It is not clear how our souls are better off with cheap gas or if this is the sort of prayer that God answers.
I have to drive ninety miles to church. Lower gas prices would certainly be better for my soul. ;-)
“On Monday, Twyman decided to take his movement from Exxon and Shell stations straight to the steps of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia…”
Wait a minute; who is he even praying TO?! Sounds like this petition is meant for the Lords of Oil, not the Lord of Hosts. (This after the Corporate Lords failed to hear his plea; he’s just going over their heads.)
Dhimmi.
I’m curious as to why they are praying for lower gas prices instead of a clean fuel that they can run their cars on. Not only would that hopefully make driving cheaper, but it would also help to preserve God’s creation.
I’ve always been of the opinion that you should pray for those favors you most fervently desire, and of course for favors for those whom you love. If lower gas prices are what they want….
I think of our prayer life as a child-parent relationship. There are times when even if the parent has to decline a child’s request, it was still good for the child to ask. Keeps the lines of communication open.
The poor are suffering greatly. Praying to alleviate the suffering of the poor seems to me to be a valid prayer.
Cleaner fuel is so far as is presently known, more expensive fuel, not cheaper fuel. Apart from the increased cost and lack of an installed infrastructure, it is of course desirable. When I am able to burn e-85 instead of e-10, and not have an increased cost per mile as a result (being one of those poor), I do so. It is cleaner, and even more renewable than rock oil from the deep hot biosphere.
“…pray in the Spirit at all times, with all kind of prayers and requests…”
That’s in Ephesians 6, in case you don’t recognize the reference.
I fail to see why prayers about something that so directly impacts our daily bread in myriad ways should be criticized. But maybe you have unlimited resources to pay for food in this economy. Some us don’t.
Unless, of course, you’re implying that it would be better for our souls that we don’t eat at all.
>>>When I am able to burn e-85 instead of e-10<<<
You won’t have to worry about the poor, then, because the price of bread will have increased so much that the poor have all starved to death. On which subject:
Biofuels Push is Driving Up World Food Prices [Stephen Spruiell]
That’s according to a new report from the Department of the Obvious:
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% – far more than previously estimated – according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
The figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Amazing. Who would have thought that converting a third of the U.S. corn crop into ethanol would have an impact on food prices?
Biofuels are not driving up the price of food. Period.
Inflation is. The radical devaluation of the dollar is. The cost of fuel for farm machinery and for running the factories that process the food is. The excess corn that is normally being allowed to rot that is being turned into ethanol was never human food stock. It isn’t something that you eat. Got it? I’m soooo tired with this Big Oil argument, it simply isn’t so. Take it from someone who lives in the corn belt and grew up on a farm.
Another fact is that we are NOT converting 1/3 of the US corn crop into ethanol. We are converting roughly 8% (predicted this year based upon projected growth) of the -field corn-, which is not used for human consumption, into ethanol. (you could eat it if you wanted to, but you would have to be awfully hungry to want to)
Since your ‘facts’ are exaggerated by several fold, perhaps you will listen.
Biofuels are not driving up the price of food. Period.
Inflation is. The radical devaluation of the dollar is. The cost of fuel for farm machinery and for running the factories that process the food is. The excess corn that is normally being allowed to rot that is being turned into ethanol was never human food stock. It isn’t something that you eat. Got it? I’m soooo tired with this Big Oil argument, it simply isn’t so. Take it from someone who lives in the corn belt and grew up on a farm.
Another fact is that we are NOT converting 1/3 of the US corn crop into ethanol. We are converting roughly 8% (predicted this year based upon projected growth) of the -field corn-, which is not used for human consumption, into ethanol. (you could eat it if you wanted to, but you would have to be awfully hungry to want to)
Since your ‘facts’ are exaggerated by several fold, perhaps you will listen.
Considering that the amount of useful fuel is about the same as the amount of fuel consumed in growing, processing, and transporting the corn, it’s still a waste of time by any measure.
Gee, I guess those World Bank economists are just full of cow manure.
Maybe so. Until the report is published and available for critique by other economists it’s kind of hard to judge, isn’t it?
>>Considering that the amount of useful fuel is about the same as the amount of fuel consumed in growing, processing, and transporting the corn, it’s still a waste of time by any measure.<<
IF what Lab says is accurate that this is waste corn nor being used for human consumption and IF it were being harvested anyway, then using it for fuel is not a waste.
What I’ve not seen discussed here, and I would be willing to listen to someone who knows, is the value of a paricular sort of grass that is being discussed as a biofuel precursor. Supposedly it only needs to be reseeded every five years or so. This would make it more efficient. However, there are a lot more factors to be weighed. Are there any experts out there lurking?
>>.IF what Lab says is accurate that this is waste corn nor being used for human consumption and IF it were being harvested anyway, then using it for fuel is not a waste.<<<
Just because it is not being used for human consumption does not mean it has no effect on the food chain or the price of food. First, there is a certain percentage of farmland being used for other crops that has been converted to grow corn because of ethanol subsidies. Land taken out of cultivation of wheat, oats, soy beans and other foodstuffs reduces the supplies of those crops, resulting in higher prices. Second, a large portion of the corn crop is used for animal feed. Corn sold for ethanol (because of the higher, subsidized price) reduces the amount of animal feed, raising the price of meat. Third, a certain percentage of the corn that would be used for human consumption IS being diverted to ethanol, reducing the supply of corn and corm products, which are found throughout the food supply, thus raising the price of food. And while the effect may be smaller in the United States, with its great agricultural capacity and typical surpluses, in Europe, Asia and Africa, the effect has been much more marked.
The excess corn that is normally being allowed to rot that is being turned into ethanol was never human food stock. It isn’t something that you eat. Got it? I’m soooo tired with this Big Oil argument, it simply isn’t so. Take it from someone who lives in the corn belt and grew up on a farm.
So let’s get this straight. Prior to the widespread, and heavily US gov’t subsidized, development of ethanol for vehicle fuel, all the corn going into it was merely wasted. The farmers were growing that fraction (what ever it is) for no reason except to rot. Only the tiniest fraction of corn, qua corn, ever went into the “human food stock”. Much of it, the majority I think, goes into animal feed, animals that we eat or whose secretions we drink; a vast amount also goes into corn syrup, which has largely replaced sugar in the foods we eat. Whether either of these uses is ultimately economical, with due consideration to “externalities”, is quite debatable; but let’s not pretend that corn doesn’t (ultimately) provide a substantial portion of human dietary calories in North America.
That argument from the “Big Oil right”, i.e., that ethanol is huge waste of money (and energy), and that it diverts acreage from the production of food for (eventual) human consumption to the maintenance of the Happy Motoring Paradise/Mirage, is articulated quite loudly on the Peak Oil “left” as well. That Stuart (of the Neocon “center”) also supports this view is indicative enough of, at least, its proufound plausibility, if not narrative tragedy.
Brief side notes:
Feeding corn to cattle is not a good idea, as their digestive systems are not made for it. While it produces sweeter, more tender meat, it also requires the cows to be shot up with antibiotics to prevent digestive tract infections.
While white sugar is bad for you, most nutritionists agree that high fructose corn syrup is worse, especially for children. One should avoid it if possible.
>>>That argument from the “Big Oil right”, i.e., that ethanol is huge waste of money (and energy), and that it diverts acreage from the production of food for (eventual) human consumption to the maintenance of the Happy Motoring Paradise/Mirage, is articulated quite loudly on the Peak Oil “left” as well. That Stuart (of the Neocon “center”) also supports this view is indicative enough of, at least, its proufound plausibility, if not narrative tragedy.<<<
Actually, ethanol is the solution to the energy crisis for people who can’t do math.
I’m with Stuart, Steve, et al. no this one. From what I understand, even if corn ethanol production had *no* effect on food prices, it would still be a net loser as an energy source.
Bobby, I’ll bet that what you’ve heard about is switchgrass ethanol productio. From what I’ve read, it beats corn ethanol on a per acre basis, but still has no where near the energy return on energy investment (EROEI) that petroleum has (currently — oil’s EROEI has gone down as drilling has become more difficult). That the entire ethanol debate revolves around corn rather than either switchgrass or Brazilian sugar cane goes to show how badly politics has distorted the economics in the field.
My personal, non-expert opinion is that no form of ethanol shows much promise of being a “solution” to the oil shortage–i.e. something that will let us maintain our transportation and industrial structures in their current energy-intensive formats. However, an extremely efficient ethanol production process may be one of the many factors that will be used to mitigate the loss of cheap oil as we transition into a more energy efficient economy.
That’s all a best case scenario, though, and you all know how much I hate those. :)
Apparently, there is a bioengineering company that has modified E. coli to digest cellulose and excrete hydrocarbons. If their initial research scales, they claim they can produce synthetic oil at $50/barrel, and given how much cellulose there is in the world, that should go a long way. Of course, I fully expect the envionmentalist lobby to oppose this for the same reason they oppose genetically engineered food, even when such foods yield significant environmental benefits (like reduced use of pesticides and herbicides). Because this never really was about the environment at all.
>>Apparently, there is a bioengineering company that has modified E. coli to digest cellulose and excrete hydrocarbons. If their initial research scales, they claim they can produce synthetic oil at $50/barrel, and given how much cellulose there is in the world, that should go a long way.< <
A local company pioneered a way to engineer diesel from general waste by breaking down the polymers into burnable liquids. Then there’s always the fact that modern diesel engines run far quieter than those of old and with the proper filters and catalysts in the exhaust system burn just as clean and free of particulates as gasoline while producing much better gas mileage and ROEI…
Wait, we can’t have diesels in the U.S. California and those environmentalists won’t let us.
Darn.
The stupidity of the U.S. policy towards diesels both illustrates the point I made about government picking winners and losers, and of the inability of government to make good choices. In Europe, diesel fuel always costs considerably less than gasoline (as it should, since it is less refined than gas), because Europeans tax diesel less than gas. As a result, Europeans have adopted modern, quiet, clean and economical diesel power for personal cars. In the United States, diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gas, so it typically costs 25-35% more. Considering that diesel engines are about 20% more fuel efficient than gasoline engines, this means the typical diesel user in this country has a 5% disincentive to continue driving a diesel car. Why? Because based on the state of technology two or three decades ago, the government decided it wanted to discourage the use of diesel power. Nice call, guys.
>>>The stupidity of the U.S. policy towards diesels both illustrates the point I made about government picking winners and losers, and of the inability of government to make good choices. In Europe, diesel fuel always costs considerably less than gasoline (as it should, since it is less refined than gas), because Europeans tax diesel less than gas.<<<
So do you approve of Europe favoring one fuel over the other any more than you favor our favoring one fuel over the other?
>>Apparently, there is a bioengineering company that has modified E. coli to digest cellulose and excrete hydrocarbons. If their initial research scales, they claim they can produce synthetic oil at $50/barrel, and given how much cellulose there is in the world, that should go a long way.<<
I’ve heard about this from one of my parishioners. The way he phrases it is “They’ve made a bacteria that farts gasoline.”
>>>So do you approve of Europe favoring one fuel over the other any more than you favor our favoring one fuel over the other?<<<
No. I think if neither was taxed at all, or if both were taxed equally, then the price of diesel would naturally be lower than that of gasoline, since it is cheaper to refine diesel fuel. And, if you want to have multi-fuel vehicles, then you are going to have to go whole-hog for diesel technology, since the core of every multi-fuel is a diesel engine, Military has had them for decades, and they run on everything from 150 octane AVGAS to low-grade paraffin. But it’s still diesel cycle.
By the way, until the price of gas went over $3.00 a gallon, it was part of every Democrat’s talking points that gas should be taxed until it cost more than $3.00 per barrel. Where was the concern for the poor working schlub, then? Now, if you ask a Democrat, he will tell you that it would be better if we taxed gas to keep the price high, because that would lower demand for gas (yes, as far as it goes), but by taxing it, the U.S. government would capture the revenues, not greedy oil companies, and then the money could be used to develop alternative “renewable” fuels.
Given the government’s track record in using earmarked taxes, as well as its dubious record of developing new technologies in a timely manner, who hear trusts the government to do this better than private enterprise? Anyone who does, I would like to interest you in this new source of energy on which I have been working. Once you get it moving, it needs no source of fuel and will run indefinitely.
Actually, another potential source of which I have heard is algae. Apparently, it is far more productive than corn in producing fuel and what’s left after the oil is extracted makes excellent animal feed. It can be grown horizontally in racks and in places where traditional crops are not grown, thus not reducing land for food (animal or human) production and, not having a lobbying organization, the research into its use is largely, if not entirely, privately funded.
Let the price of oil stay this high and entrepreneurs will come up will all sorts of solutions.
Here is a short piece on gasoline-farting bacteria:
You Got Bacteria in My Gas: Engineering Microbes to Make Hydrocarbons
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 06. 6.07
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
The day when we’ll be getting our fix of hydrocarbons from a vat of engineered microbes instead of vats of gasoline from the Middle East may be coming sooner than expected. LS9, the self-styled “renewable petroleum company” based in San Carlos, CA, is using the nascent field of synthetic biology to modify bacteria into creating hydrocarbons for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
The company plans on incorporating gene pathways present in other microbes, plants and animals into these bacteria to give them the ability to store energy. LS9 joins a group of recent startups that include Amyris and SunEthanol that are also focusing on applying synthetic biology towards the engineering of microorganisms able to produce biofuels.
Stephen del Cardayre, the company’s vice president for research and development, claims LS9 is the first among these to make microbes that are capable of secreting hydrocarbons and says that it is now working on customizing the rate of production and the hydrocarbons themselves. “We certainly have gone beyond what we think anybody else was even thinking of doing” in terms of producing hydrocarbons from microbes, says George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and one of the company’s co-founders.
Cardayre argues that LS9′s biofuels offer several benefits that make them more attractive as an alternative to fossil fuels than do ethanol-derived fuels, including higher cost-efficiency and lower energy consumption in production (65% less energy).
Although this technology shows great promise, many in the fields of life sciences and business have cautioned that there is no way yet of ascertaining when and whether biofuels will overtake traditional fossil fuels. Noubar Afeyan, the CEO of Flagship Ventures, recently said “That is a subject of great debate and great prognostication. The opportunity is so large that I don’t have to believe in much more than a few percentage points of market penetration for it to be worth our investment.”
Besides using their technology to bring specific types of fuel such as high-performance jet fuel or sulfur-free gasoline to market within four or five years, officials at LS9 plan on licensing it to other companies, particularly ethanol producers that could use it to improve the profitability and efficiency of their production capacity.
>>>Let the price of oil stay this high and entrepreneurs will come up will all sorts of solutions.<<<
Sounds like a market-based solution (the best energy policy is NO energy policy)–but when the rubber hits the road, who will protect the entrepreneurs from the depredations of the NIMBYs, the environmentalists, the regulators, and above all, the tort lawyers?
>>>Sounds like a market-based solution (the best energy policy is NO energy policy)<<<
Excellent. We agree. We don’t need a domestic or foreign policy based in whole or in part on manipulating the price of oil.
>>>We don’t need a domestic or foreign policy based in whole or in part on manipulating the price of oil.<<<
I don’t think we’ve ever had a FOREIGN policy based on manipulating the price of oil, and if we did, it doesn’t seem to work. We have tried several times to use domestic policy to manipulate the price of oil, and we KNOW that doesn’t work–at least if your objective is to make gas plentiful and cheap.
>>>I don’t think we’ve ever had a FOREIGN policy based on manipulating the price of oil, and if we did, it doesn’t seem to work.<<<
Really! You are kidding aren’t you? Just a few weeks ago, Bush tried to jawbone the Saudis into raising their production to increase supply and, as a result, cut the price of oil. If that is not a foreign policy aimed at manipulating the price of oil, I don’t know what it is. You are right about one thing . . . it didn’t work.
>>>Really! You are kidding aren’t you? Just a few weeks ago, Bush tried to jawbone the Saudis into raising their production to increase supply and, as a result, cut the price of oil. If that is not a foreign policy aimed at manipulating the price of oil, I don’t know what it is. You are right about one thing . . . it didn’t work.<<<
That’s not foreign policy, which is something a bit bigger and broader. It certainly isn’t a major pillar of our foreign policy, else we WOULD have waged war for oil, taken the Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, ensured our own domestic requirements at a steep discount, and sold the surplus on the world market at premium prices.
Bush’s effort to induce the Saudis to increase their production had two major thrusts, neither central to foreign policy. The first was domestic–even though he probably knows there isn’t much the President can do to influence oil prices, Bush recognized the political necessity of being seen to be TRYING to do something. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
The second is more broadly related to global economics. Bad as things seem here, they are worse in other countries, and the United States cannot afford to allow the rest of the world to slip into recession. So boosting Saudi production was not so much about us (we get less than 25% of our oil from the Middle East), but about places like Europe and Japan, on whom we depend for our foreign trade. We need to ensure their economic stability for our own, and their own political stability if they are to be useful allies to us.
On the national security front, we are more concerned with security of supply than with the price per barrel. But there is a national security rationale for getting the price of oil down by half to two-thirds, and that is the effect it will have on some of our major adversaries. In particular, a plunge in the price of oil would bankrupt Iran overnight and put the kibosh on their nuclear ambitions. It would also cause an implosion of the Russian economy, which is largely driven by petrodollars, and thus would certainly dampen Russia’s ability to influence events in the “near abroad” and Western Europe.
I read that elder services like Meals on Wheels were cut to people in isolated areas because of the cost of gas. Gas prices and the cost of food hits people on fixed incomes hard. Those who can may need to open our hearts, tighten our belts, cut luxuries to help out.
“Gee, I guess those. . .economists are just full of cow manure.”
I fixed it for you, Stuart. :-)
>>>That’s not foreign policy, which is something a bit bigger and broader. It certainly isn’t a major pillar of our foreign policy, else we WOULD have waged war for oil.<<<
Once again, you confuse foreign policy with the use of the military. The use of the military is but one TOOL in exercising foreign policy, it is not itself synonymous with foreign policy. But I guess if the only tool you recognize is a hammer then every problem (be it the price and supply of oil, Darfur, Zimbabwe (it ceased being Rhodesia a long time ago) is a nail. You are simply incorrect that the use of tools other than sending in troops is an exercise of “half-measures.” It is, rather, using prudence and wisdom in selecting the right tool for the job in light of the degree of the national interests at stake.
It is simply laughable that the supply and price of oil (and the two are inextricably related) is not an element of our foreign policy. We went to war, quite appropriately I believe, in the first Bush administration, in part, to prevent Iraq gaining a strangle hold on a large part of the world’s oil supply. And, sorry, bringing up oil supplies and pricing during a state visit makes it part of our foreign policy. I don’t deny that Bush had a domestic audience in mind, IN PART, when he was broaching the subject with the Saudis, but your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs in fact reveal that a foreign policy element was also at stake.
“…Zimbabwe (it ceased being Rhodesia a long time ago)…”
And yet the Soviet Union never ceased being Russia – so there was at least something to start over with, in the post-Communist rubble.
The word “Zimbabwe” is of course quite a bit older than the tribute to Cecil Rhodes, but the government which runs the nation under that name has no relation to ancient Zimbabwe – and is a far worse no-hoper than even the Soviet system ever was. If indeed none of the Rhodesian legacy can ever be re-awakened there – and it probably can’t – well, the worse for “Zimbabwe”. (Too bad the ancient kingdom can’t sue Mugabe for defamation of character, for the use of its name.)
On hammers and nails: actually, the Biblical references to government refer to its proper tool as the sword. (My pastor preached on Romans 13 yesterday.) Those problems not amenable to the sword, are exactly the ones I think governments are well-advised to leave to more appropriate human agencies – businesses, churches, universities or what-have-you.
As for gas-farting bacteria, they’re really not new, or all that productive; we’ve filled legislatures with them for years.
>>>”…Zimbabwe (it ceased being Rhodesia a long time ago)…”
And yet the Soviet Union never ceased being Russia – so there was at least something to start over with, in the post-Communist rubble.<<<
Ah, but Russia and the other former Soviet republics ceased being the Soviet Union and that is the proper analogy here. Unfortunately, it appears the Putin may be working for a second act for the USSR, in substance if not in name.
>>>On hammers and nails: actually, the Biblical references to government refer to its proper tool as the sword.<<<
Actually, nothing in the Bible appears to limit the tools available to government to the sword. In this case, inclusion of one does not imply exclusion of all others and nothing in St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans implies otherwise. Surely if a problem proper for government is amenable to more than one solution, one which avoids war is to be preferred over war. Otherwise, the purpose of the just war doctrine becomes, in effect, the proper role for government doctrine. And I’ll bet that you don’t object to such government services as fire departments.
Far be it from me to turn the fire trucks away, government or not! Still, even fire departments are paramilitary in nature – organized for the population’s protection, a legitimate governmental role.
A couple of thoughts on fuels:
I like Michael’s article on turning garbage into diesel, but the news story itself seemed a bit bogus. Entrepreneur pours a mixture of petroleum and garbage into a black box and gets a petroleum-based fuel out. Hmm… did he really do anything besides filter the garbage? I’ve read about this elsewhere, so I don’t think it’s a fake (or a complete fake, anyway), but I’d be a little suspicious with only a demo like that. Sounds a bit like a perpetual motion machine.
I’m not sure how efficient converting switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol is, but I recall one of my profs saying that my home state of Minnesota could achieve energy independence if the process ever turns out as its proponents claim. (He was much more in favor of dimethyl ether as a diesel fuel instead of ethanol/ methanol, but that’s another story.) Anyway, this suggests to me that even if we get cellulosic ethanol, we’ll still create food price problems, as most of Minnesota’s breadbasket production would be turned over to switchgrass. I doubt it will match the EROEI of petroleum any time soon, but there’s something to be said for a fuel that you can grow in the medians of your freeways.
>>>I like Michael’s article on turning garbage into diesel, but the news story itself seemed a bit bogus. Entrepreneur pours a mixture of petroleum and garbage into a black box and gets a petroleum-based fuel out. >>>
A little bit like Hamburger Helper.
Some loose ends.
Feeding corn to cattle is not a good idea, as their digestive systems are not made for it. While it produces sweeter, more tender meat, it also requires the cows to be shot up with antibiotics to prevent digestive tract infections.
While white sugar is bad for you, most nutritionists agree that high fructose corn syrup is worse, especially for children. One should avoid it if possible.
Rob G., I am in complete agreement on both counts, but my main point was to rub out L’Ab’s silly argument about ethanol (motoring Joules) offering no competition with human food (survival Joules). In fact, the much of today’s “corn belt” represents what I can only call perversion of the natural order. Corn (which humans can, in theory, eat; but which is un-natural and unhealthy to cattle) can only grow on prairie, if at all, with substantial fossil fuel inputs (natural gas fertilizers, petrol-based pesticides, &c.). Grass (from which humans cannot, even in theory, derive useful Joules; but upon which cattle have always thrived), on the other hand, grows just fine. In response to these facts, we have spent much of the last 100 years busing up the sod of the prairie to grow corn (part of the so-called “green” revolution), and then feedlot the poor bovines and stuff them full of corn. It’s perverse, and obviously unsustainable, from top to bottom.
The government controls on agriculture (the subsidies are only half the story, designed to keep all the farmers from going out of business at once), designed to keep grocery prices down (for a contented populace re-elects incumbents)(and which policy isn’t working very well right now), force farmers to plant every bit of ground that they can, because the profit margin is so very small. As a result, they over produce. Stupid? Yes. But that is the reality.
We then have to sell to the grain elevators what they offer us, and that is more or less set on the Chicago Board of Trade. Farmers can only sell what is going to be bought, they can’t just up and switch to other crops, for no one would buy them, the infrastructure is not in place. As a result, there used to be hundred foot high piles of corn on the ground at every grain elevator in the upper midwest, the silos being full. That is where the 8% (projected this year in Minnesota) for ethanol production comes from. Ethanol from corn has a 1.68 increase in energy over what it costs to make – because corn takes its energy from the Sun. Ethanol is a storage system for solar energy that works in existing motor vehicles.
Switchgrass? algae? We’ll grow it if you can guarantee the market and the infrastructure to buy it from us. The guys who got into Jerusalem artichokes when I was a boy, were hurt bad when harvest came, and there was no infrastructure to buy it. That lesson is not forgotten. Promises aren’t good enough, we have to see that everything is in place, and even then we’ll be skeptical.
Stuart, you have a thorium breeder that will fit under the hood? ;-)
Fire departments? Those are volunteer! If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Steve Nicoloso, what is your experience with agriculture? The corn will certainly grow without fertilizer, though you’d be down to closer to 100 bushels per acre, probably. We never have used pesticides. The USDA used to promote ‘heavily marbled beef’ as the ideal. To get that, you would confine the steers to feedlots and feed them corn (and a little soybean). As we’ve discovered, this wasn’t such a good idea after all, but corn still produces far more biomass per acre than (non-maize) grass does. And the infrastructure is in place, so we are basically locked into it. It isn’t good. Farmers would be a lot better off with four crops than two, but the government knew best, and they came to ‘help’ us. My argument isn’t silly, it happens to be true (potentially imprecise for those who want to ‘win’ arguments by nit-picking). It is just that city people don’t have a clue about the reality of farming post-WWII.
Labrialumn, we agree that the government needs to get out of the agriculture business.
>>>Fire departments? Those are volunteer! If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!<<<
Only in less populated areas. Most large cities have their own government ran fire departments and they do a fine job. Government can in fact do some things well.
Even volunteer fire departments are organized along military lines, with companies, battalions, and in some instances, brigades. This custom goes back to the Romans: Caesar Augustus organized a citywide fire department cum police force called the Vigiles (they also served as a paramilitary counterweight to the Praetorian Guard–see Tiberius’ overthrow of Sejanus, for instance), with one company for each of the city’s fourteen districts. It’s no accident, then, that in 19th century America, big city fire departments also had their own militia organization, and when the Civil War began, many of these were federalized as United States Volunteer Regiments, the most famous of which was the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry, known (because of their origin and their uniform) as the “Fire Zouaves”.