Hypocrisy, Again (And Again, And Again, And Again…)

Kim du Toit
April 6, 2007
10:04 AM CDT

From Barry Beelzebub:

You may have caught some of the hype regarding alternative fuels like bio-diesel that can be developed from easily grown crops. Seems sensible, doesn’t it? Why pipe it from under the sea or desert if you can plant a few gallons in your back garden?

Small snag. A principal component of environmentally-friendly fuel is palm oil. Palm oil is now being extensively grown in Borneo and Sumatra to supply this growing trend. Unfortunately this means massive clearance of the rain forests that are the natural habitat of the wonderful orang-utan, whose numbers have already halved in the past two decades.

So there you have it. Put a tiger in your tank and make a monkey homeless.

But my favorite is this one, sent to me in email:

Look over the descriptions of the following two houses, and see if you can tell which one belongs to an environmentalist.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the temperate South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide.  The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps, which draw ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20-room energy guzzling mansion) is outside Nashville, Tennessee.  It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

And there you have it.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Comment Form | Original Post

Yeah, I was familiar with that one already.  It’s only the most ridiculous of a great many such comparisons that could be made.

Deoxy | 4/6/2007 10:11 AM CDT | #86041


What good is a castle if you don’t need serfs to run it?

That is the thing that gets me most about the democrats.  They claim to be on the little guys side, but they are just as busy making sure there will always be a little guy.

Sounds like Bush is more a cowboy, which around here means “self reliant” and “can do”.  “Get er done” is a credo, not a tag line to a joke.

Gore needs a fan club.

PaulB | 4/6/2007 10:21 AM CDT | #86043


I have to disagree with the part of your post regarding biodiesel.  Yes, one could use palm oil to make it...or soybean oil, olive oil, corn oil - ANY plant-based oil will do, including used french fry oil from your local McDonald’s. 

I have a client who is building a biodiesel plant.  He will use french fry oil when he can get it (of course, quantities are limited and not constant in any case, but he gets it for nothing), or soybean oil...for now.  Later, he will be planting thousands of acres with a plant called jatropha, which is ideal for this purpose for 2 reasons:  First, it produces far more oil per acre than soy (up to 12 times as much, if cared for properly) and, second, it grows in arid climates in sandy soil (plus wet climates with good dirt - but that’s better used for food).  It’ll take 3 years for the plants to mature, at which point he plans to ditch the soy oil.

The point is that no monkeys need be made homeless to drive your diesel.  Oh, and biodiesel has virtually no sulphur, its a renewable resource, it is non-toxic and it has phenomenol lubricity (replacing, with as little as a 2% concentration, all of the lubricity of petro-diesel that’s been lost in the EPA-required 99.9% reduction of sulphur in diesel fuel (higher concentrations - B5, B20 or B50 - increase lubricity so much as to actually extend engine life, which is a big factor for tractor trailors, trains, military vehicles, city buses, etc.).  Finally, this can and will be produced HERE, creating jobs HERE and screwing the Arabs, Venezualans and other assorted tyrants and misanthropes who sell us oil.

Honestly, I don’t see any downside to this stuff.

Sam Adams | 4/6/2007 10:33 AM CDT | #86044


Not surprised at all.  I’ve always known the Goracle is a liar, a cheat, and hypocrite.

308Mike | 4/6/2007 10:34 AM CDT | #86046


Talk about an inconvient truth; Bush’s house is more eco-friendly than the Goreacle.  But Gore buys enough carbon credits from himself, so all sins are forgiven.

Too bad we won’t see any HGTV specials on the Western White House.  I’ve known about the underground cistern bits and the use of native plants in landscaping for a long while, but those just say “common sense in rural Texas” more than “enviromentalist”.  My grandmother in east Texas always had a cistern collecting rainwater.  And using plants native to the area that have already adapted to dry conditions is smarter than bringing in plants from elsewhere that are used to having more water.

DFWMTX | 4/6/2007 10:43 AM CDT | #86047


I have been in construction for 25 years and have all the while been collecting ideas and information about low impact/low energy consumption design. The house I have in mind will be very similar to the Presidents with the addition of quite a few passive solar gain features.

I find it at best ironic, and worst hypocritical and telling that, GWB the supposed enviormental visigoth has a primary residence that is many more times kind to Mother Gaia than that of the High Priest of the Watermelons, Al “The Goracle” Gore. That GWB choses to live in the country and the DC salon raised Blowhard Blueblood from Nashville chooses to live in a city is not lost on me either. We country bumpkins of the hinterlands have always been better conservationists than our urban betters out of necessity. It is a matter of survival when you are self suffcient and rely on the land for sustenance - The old don’t shit in your own nest maxim of physical hygiene and sustainability applies here. That our urban betters think caring for nature is something they, and only they, in their infinite wisdom and compassion have recently developed is laughable, and again telling. It reminds us of who the truely guilty are when it comes to hubris, selfishness, rapiciousness and short sightedness in providing effort and diligence towards sustainability for theirselves and community.

Yankchair | 4/6/2007 10:47 AM CDT | #86049


Delicious comparison.  The wife and I are considering building a house and would install a Geo-thermal system - not because of the environment but because it is cheaper to run.

I don’t know much about BioDesiel.  I do know the whole ethanol thing is a complete scam.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

NJSoldier | 4/6/2007 10:49 AM CDT | #86050


It’s worse than a complete scam; it’s actively damaging to people. The price of corn is out of the reach of a lot of the poor because it’s all being bid for by ethanol producers.

SDN | 4/6/2007 10:56 AM CDT | #86053


As to Algore’s house - he’s a fucking hypocrite of the 1st order, the very definition of the self-serving politicians that we all hate with a passion.  Of course, the LSM barely noticed, and he’ll be back giving BS speeches with his hair on fire within a month.

I can’t find the thing, but there was a cartoon about 2 or 3 weeks ago showing Gore testifying in front of Congress about the environment - in a coal-powered jet seat.  I nearly spit my coffee all over the screen when I saw it, because it perfectly illustrates the “for thee and not for me” philosophy that guides him.

Sam Adams | 4/6/2007 11:06 AM CDT | #86057


Ethanol is a scam since it take more energy to produce than you get out of it.  It is one of those political things - in the interest of major farming corporations (like ADM) which want to sell everything they can grow, it has been made to sound like the perfect answer to our energy problem.  That it is actually counterproductive doesn’t seem to matter for the Congress, as long as the contributions and the consulting contracts for family members and friends keep rolling in.

Sam Adams | 4/6/2007 11:13 AM CDT | #86058


I love the description of the WWH of GWB! That just sounds so brilliantly pristine of a concept! And, yeah, the biodiesel sounds like just the thing indeed. You’ve gotta love the comparisons here.

cmblake6 | 4/6/2007 11:15 AM CDT | #86059


The only problem is a nit-pick: you don’t grow palm oil. Don’t you grow palm trees, and then extract the oil?

carnaby | 4/6/2007 11:24 AM CDT | #86060


I found the Gore cartoon:  Go to Post #3 at the following thread on Free Republic:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1810754/posts

The rest of the cartoons are a hoot.

Sam Adams | 4/6/2007 11:39 AM CDT | #86063


Speaking of ethanol, lets not forget the damn thing is more like an explosive rather than a controlled burn of normal petrol. Engines will wear out faster which means replacements, which means more metal is needed, which means more nasty mines, which means more enviro damage.

Elijah | 4/6/2007 11:41 AM CDT | #86064


The hypocrisy is to be expected, we are dealing with Democrats afterall. What raises my ire about the issue is the apologist attitudes from the shills in Gore’s camp.  They (wrongly) claim that he buys “carbon credits” to offset his lifestyle and “carbon footprint” by using the invested money (through Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chair, conveniently based on foreign shores) to front “green initiatives” and “green and renewable technology”.  What we know of these things is that very little, if any, real progress is made.  Instead we get a bunch of fudged numbers about efficiency, or some other rot.

I don’t even want to hear about how Gore’s mansion is supposedly LEED-certified (Platinum rated, no doubt), or his Live Earth concerts that are same.  LEED is something that is, quite inconveniently, part of my job, and believe me, its “standards” are about as specious as can be imagined.  There are different levels of certification, up to the aforementioned platinum standard, but my experience has shown me that the real-life numbers after operations have begun (post occupancy evaluations for one of our clients has been a real teacher about design related issues) in these structures is not much better than if it hadn’t been designed with LEED.  The whole thing is largely a scam, directed at the easily lead, emotion driven crowd who are guilt ridden about having a heated home to live in year ‘round.

Bah!

theirritablearchitect | 4/6/2007 11:48 AM CDT | #86066


Isn’t it a recurring affair - that a number of preachers in the end do not practice?

There are two main problems with biodiesel: scale and efficiency.

Scale - In order to replace a significant amount of diesel with the bio version, staggering vast stretches of land have to be used for oily plants. The jatropha cited above is a step in the right direction, but not the miraculous solution.

Efficiency - The usable oil is a small fraction of the plant mass; factoring in all the energy required to grow, water, fertilize the plants and produce the biodiesel, overall efficiency is poor.

This said, I think that biodiesel is suitable for niche uses. But without some breakthrough, running a whole big country on it is not feasible.

FabioC. | 4/6/2007 11:52 AM CDT | #86067


This said, I think that biodiesel is suitable for niche uses. But without some breakthrough, running a whole big country on it is not feasible.

True enough-now.  But it unquestionably will work at the margins to help our economy and reduce pollution.  It’ll take some of the pressure off of oil prices (not much now, significantly more in 5-10 years as more plants come on line and as more auto manufacturers begin marketing emissions-compliant diesels that very closely mimick the performance of gas-powered vehicles).

I don’t believe that there is one single answer for our energy problems, at least not now - we need biodiesel, more drilling, more efficient homes and cars, nuke plants by the dozen, etc., etc.  The technology is there, as long as the politicians tell the enviro-freaks STFU.  That won’t happen until we get gasoline, natural gas and electricity prices that are 50% higher than now on a sustainable basis (and, of course, then it’ll take 5-10 years to fix the problem - who ever said that the American people and our corrupt, hypocritical politicians had any vision?).

Sam Adams | 4/6/2007 12:51 PM CDT | #86078


The Gore house story reminds me of Gorakle/Klinton acolyte John Travolta flying his fat ass around in his own 707. He probably drives a Prius to the airport.

tsj55 | 4/6/2007 01:12 PM CDT | #86085


Steven Den Beste covered that a while back.  As Fabio said, the scale is just not there for any of it to work.  Here is another rundown.

Joe in PNG | 4/6/2007 01:52 PM CDT | #86094


What’s important about the palm-oil deal is not that it would be imported to the U.S.  What’s important is that if bio-diesel becomes a fuel of SE Asia and Pacific nations, the palm trees will be used as a source--with ensuing habitat destruction.

We’ll have a good bit of habitat destruction, here, with expansion of acreage for corn.  More farming, less open pasture and range for such as deer and pheasant.

‘Rat

Desertrat | 4/6/2007 03:10 PM CDT | #86101


Kim - well done.

Tallis | 4/6/2007 03:10 PM CDT | #86102


Making biodiesel is incredibly simple.  The major ingredients are vegetable oil, pure lye(sodium hydroxide), and 100% methanol.  You can do it in your garage or back yard.

Right now, there are folks using waste fryer grease to make their own biodiesel, and running in their diesel cars.  And no road tax...............

The Termite | 4/6/2007 03:35 PM CDT | #86104


Indeed, making biodiesel is quite simple in principle. It’s called base-catalyzed transesterification and it isn’t an esoteric reaction.

However, if you want to make quality stuff (low water and impurities content), especially when starting from used frying oil, or scale up the plant to industrial size, all sort of problems arise. Nothing that chemical engineers can’t handle, tho. I used to know a researcher who worked to optimize the biodiesel production process: there still is some way to go.

FabioC. | 4/6/2007 04:03 PM CDT | #86108


Making biodiesel is incredibly simple.  The major ingredients are vegetable oil, pure lye(sodium hydroxide), and 100% methanol.  You can do it in your garage or back yard.

100% methanol???

Isn’t that made of natural gas???

Guy22

Guy22 | 4/6/2007 05:13 PM CDT | #86110


Wow, we’re talking chemistry here!

Yes, methanol is nowadays for the most part made from synthesys gas, which in turn comes from steam reforming of natural gas (mainly), coal or naphta - possibly some biomass.

However, biodiesel is, chemically, a mixture of methyl esters of fatty acids: this means that at the end of a chain with roughly 14-20 carbon atoms, there is one single carbon atom from methanol. In short, the amount of fossil carbon in biodiesel is pretty small.

FabioC. | 4/6/2007 05:53 PM CDT | #86115


I think Popular Mechanics had an item on using GM bacteria to synthesize large quantities of ethanol.  Apparently far higher outputs than any agriculture based mechanism.  Problem of course is development, and keeping the anti-GM eco-freaks at bay.

Dub_James | 4/7/2007 12:31 AM CDT | #86136


Our mayor had a geothermal system installed.
Not too long afterwards the greens were up in arms because that system might cause the groundwater level to drop, causing problems for trees…

Of course that mayor is rightwing, the greens are leftwing…

She did make a mistake however, as you require a permit here to install such a system (a permit hardly ever granted because the watercompanies object to anyone but them pumping water out of the ground for whatever reason) which she failed to get (she did ask her architect whether a permit was required, indicating proper intent, but the architect mistakenly told her it wasn’t required as her system pumps the water back after use).
Of course now she had to turn the system off and install a gas powered heating system instead, requiring the city to break open roads to install gas mains to the area at considerable cost to the mayor AND the community as well as (if the greens are right) the “environment”.

jwenting | 4/7/2007 04:03 AM CDT | #86137


Whatever you do, don’t try it in Illinois or Britain… you could end up in jail for tax evasion.

Think I may’ve gotten this one from you originally, Kim:
http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt

The UK one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,878122,00.html

Croaker | 4/7/2007 11:04 AM CDT | #86157


How is a geothermal system going to lower the water table, if you have y gallons in the ground, and pump x gallons per hour out and x gallons per hour can anyone tell me how many gallons are in the ground?

merll2005 | 4/7/2007 11:47 AM CDT | #86160


PaulB;

Gore needs A CLUB, not a FAN club -let’s get the terminology correct here!

merll2005;
Remember, a Greenie can tell things about the Earth that geophysical scientists and incredibly sensitive instrumentation can miss, or misread. It’s called “being ‘ONE’ with the environment.”

For a wider definition of my opinion of Greenies and other pseudo-scientist types, read Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. Kim, I would HIGHLY recommend this book, even though it IS a novel, because most, if not ALL, of the science quoted in it by the Non-Greenies is accurate, as far as it is alleged to be. It should be required reading for counter-idiot movement staffers.

Jim

The Mad Yank | 4/7/2007 12:58 PM CDT | #86163


Ethanol has a lot of potential for the future but its got a number of inherent problems.
1. It reacts to water. Any moisture in a fuel line will pretty much ruin the fuel unlike gasoline which doesn’t even physically mix with water.
2. Ethanol is inherently less energy dense than gasoline, so a user will be burning more ethanol to get the same work output.
3. Ethanol burns hotter and combust at a faster rate so regulating the combustion cycle is harder and requires a bit more durability on the mechanisms.
4. You just can’t get enough ethanol out of standard produces or procedures to produce the amounts you need. Brazil is using sugar cane which is much more productive than corn.

Overall ethanol COULD be a usable future energy source since it does burn cleaner than diesel and gasoline. Techniques for getting ethanol and methanol out of standard biomass such as corn stalks are underway but economic production in the levels needed for the US energy demands can’t be met till such techniques are perfected.  Purdue University recently patented a method of impregnanting more hydrogen into the hydrocarbon process so things like ethanol would burn even more efficient with even less carbon dioxide out put, yet it is still one more thing that needs to be perfected.

In the long run burning up all the oil for fuel is sort of silly because the hydrocarbons have a lot more usability for plastics and other manufactured substances. But at the same time the energy policy of the future can’t just be solved by one method. That is the problem with most of the Greens on any side of an ideological camp. There is no quick solution. We have an infrastructure that has developed for almost a 100 years to use the current methods. If they want to completely replace that infrastructure (natural gas, oil, gasoline, diesel, coal, hydroelectric, etc.) then they need to find whole new fields of technology.  I usually chalk this up to people that can’t or won’t do the math and who can’t process or stand the idea of complex thinking. Everyone wants the ‘quick fix’ cheaply, efficiently, and immediately. This is called day dreaming.  As one engineering friend of mine is found of saying the classic quote, it’s an AM/FM problem. The engineer and analysist see the AM (actual machinery), while the day dreamer sees the FM (f***ing magic).

grayburst | 4/7/2007 01:08 PM CDT | #86164


People always say that it takes energy to get ethanol out of the corn kernal.  Well, doesn’t it take energy to crack the crude oil molecule?  Don’t you have to heat up the crude oil to transform it from a slick gunky tarry substance into that no-lead fluid you use?
Oh and the argument that we are “ripping” food out of the mouths of ‘po people....nope the corn that is used for ethanol production is FIELD CORN and is not edible by humans.  It’s cow food and the by-product of ethanol is a highly nutritious supplement for cows.

eacres | 4/7/2007 01:42 PM CDT | #86167


Grain price has doubled. Say goodbye to beef, chicken, and all that. Food into fuel is a bad idea.

What’s worse, by everyone slamming corn into the ground, and taking land out of the Conservation Reserve Program, you’ve got corn corn corn everywhere, even on highly erodeable land, and now they’re going to cellulose fermentation, so they’re not even leaving the stover.

How long does good midwestern corn-growing ground survive having all the biomass stripped by continuous corn? Not long. Hello dustbowl, famine, and economic collapse.

Vaarok | 4/7/2007 02:27 PM CDT | #86169


eacres:
It takes only a little energy to crack crude compared to the energy in the fuel. It takes much, much more energy to grow and harvest corn (including production of pesticides and fertilizer), then to ferment it and distill the energy - so much that the BTU’s in the ethanol just barely exceeds the BTU’s input, at least with typical American farming methods.

Field corn[1] is indeed used to feed humans. It produces corn oil, often used to make margarine and cooking oil. amd corn flour, which is used for tortillas, corn flakes and many other breakfast cereals, and the cornbread muffins I made for lunch today. I doubt I’ll ever have trouble outbidding fuel producers for enough flour to make a side dish of corn bread, but poor Mexicans aren’t so lucky, and it’s not side-dishes they’ll be missing, but their main course = corn tortillas. It’s always been the cheapest food available to them, especially if they buy flour and make the tortillas themselves. Even though corn itself is nutritionally highly unbalanced, it provides the calories hardworking men need, and by adding beans, peppers, squash, and garden greens, they got a cheap diet that meets the nutritional minimum requirements - but it’s not so cheap when the price of corn triples.

OTOH, if the cost of animal feed increases greatly, so will the price of beef, pork, and chicken - and that *will* affect me, and probably you. The mash leftover after fermenting and distilling is quite good cattle feed, but it won’t fatten as many cows[2] as the corn would have. A lot of calories got turned into alcohol. Beef farmers can either raise their prices and bid against the ethanol producers for corn, cut down their production and raise their prices so we get less beef for the same money, or feed the cows less grains, mash, etc., and turn them out to eat grass more. That last option makes good-tasting beef if you don’t overdo it and wind up with skinny cows, and it gets more use out of land that isn’t practical for planted/harvested crops (steep hillsides, western land with too little rain and no irrigation water, and even some Michigan soils with excess sand), but the cows do grow more slowly and the beef will cost more.

[1] For any English people reading this, in the USA “corn” means the particular grain you call maize, not just any grain.
[2] I’m using “cows” in the generic sense here, as American beef growers generally do - that is, including calves, heifers, cows proper (mature females), steers, and bulls. (Not that I recommend raisiing bulls for food, although young ones can be quite tasty. I know that because once the rubber band thingy that Dad used to turn bull feeder calves into steers broke without us noticing, and at about 500 pounds and the onset of puberty that calf became dangerous - but he tasted very good.)

markm | 4/7/2007 04:10 PM CDT | #86174


Actually, distillers grain is a pretty bad feed. It’s palatable, but not much else.

You can only feed so much of it, and it’s very nutritionally imbalanced. We feed corn for carbohydrates, when you use the carbohydrates up, and you feed the remnant, surprise, you’re short carbohydrate.

And Cornell has pretty much said it’s net loss, not break-even, for the energy budget. Their willow-pulp experiments, which are actually peer-reviewed and plausable, are barely profitable in terms of energy.

Oh, and remember, the government is subsidizing ethanol plants and paying a 51-cent premium for blending ethanol. So your plant goes up for free, and your production costs are covered, so all your income after cost of inputs is pure profit. It’s all speculators and the Big Oil Companies, which own a commanding share of this idiocy, and the politicians that they hired.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug03/ethanol_subsidies.hrs.html

Vaarok | 4/7/2007 08:12 PM CDT | #86184


I don’t know if I’ve posted it here before, but either way, here goes:

THE number One most prolific element in the Universe is Hydrogen. That includes here on Earth; it’s part of WATER.
Remember the Hindenberg? Now, picture a small version of THAT in every cylinder of your car/truck/morotcycle/boat/recip-engine airplane, and burning inside the cans of your jet engine.
Now picture THIS: Along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts of the North American continent, every 20-30 miles, a relatively small Nuke Power Plant, running an electric generator station, a desalination plant, and a fuel-cell that can separate distilled water into Oxygen and HYDROGEN.
Remember that the by-product of burning Hydrogen and Oxygen is water vapor; this is true whether you are using combustion or fuel-cell reversal, as in COMBINING Hydrogen and Oxygen to make water vapor and electricity. Either way, you get power delivered to the drive-shafts of your vehicle - CLEANLY.
The problem is three-fold:
1.) The Greenies have put a stranglehold on Nuke Power Plants for the last 20+ years, because more than half of them are closet Luddites - they WANT civilization to fall, or at least high-tech civilization.
2.) Distribution; the petrochemical industry has a HUGE investment in fossil fuels; converting to a hydrogen economy will damage too many fortunes, including Haliburton and others.
3.) Detroit needs to dig out a BUNCH of patents that the oil industry is sitting on; that won’t be easy. But it can be done, and as soon as Detroit AND Houston/Dallas figure out that Dubya wasn’t kidding about going Hydrogen, they’ll take a closer look and see the forest AND the trees. THEN we’ll see Hydro-fuel vehicles.

And by the way, do NOT preach to me, Mister Leftie-Greenie, about that Hinderberg disaster. The Hindenberg was well over 100,000 cubic feet of hydrogen, encased in a rubberized fabric bag, with a aluminum and steel framework. In other words, a bomb looking for a place to explode.
Hydrogen fuel, in a car’s pressure tank, will be less than 10 cubic feet, encased in armor-class STEEL, protected by the frame of the vehicle involved.
And, Mr. Greenie, SHUT UP about Nuclear Melt-down. 3 Mile Island didn’t. Not even Chernobyl melted down (it DID blow up - but Chernobyl was a breeder, designed to make Plutonium; electricity was a by-product). Jane Fonda can KMA or not.

See ya!

Jim

The Mad Yank | 4/7/2007 10:00 PM CDT | #86186


Jim: Amen about nuke power. Chernobyl was a poor design, badly operated by a collectivist regime, and even so I doubt it was as bad as the deaths and environmental damage from a large coal-mining operation, if you add them up over a few decades. I’m not so sure about hydrogen as a fuel for cars. Pressure tanks to carry 300 miles worth of fuel are impracticably large and heavy. It may be possible to improve this with a tank filler that absorbs hydrogen (e.g., as metal hydrides), but I haven’t seen figures from any practical demonstrations of this yet.

However, transportation is less than half of the total energy usage, and nuclear energy could easily replace all the rest - if the barriers to building plants are removed. Don’t let questions about how to handle the last 40% of a problem paralyze you from using the obvious solution for the first 60%. Hydrogen would be part of that plan; at times of low power usage, electrolyze water with the excess electricity to produce H2, which would go into a grid of pipelines. Secondary power generators (fuel cell and/or gas turbine) would run from stored hydrogen to cover peak loads and provide backup power when needed, and these could be placed where the waste heat would be used for building heating. Heat houses with heat pumps where the climate is warm enough, electricity, or hydrogen. Most industrial processes that are heated by burning fuel could convert to hydrogen and run cleaner…

BTW, in your bit about the Hindenberg, you forgot the extremely flammable paint/sealant that covered the fabric skin. IIRC, it was similar to the “dope” used on fabric-covered airplanes to make the cloth airtight, but “improved” by adding aluminum flakes to protect the rubber gasbags (inside of and separate from the aerodynamic skin), and give the dirigible a metallic look. The base formula was nearly as flammable as gasoline, and probably provided enough heat to ignite the Al chips, which burn very, very intensely once ignited.  Remember those photographs of huge flames shooting from the Hindenburg? Pure hydrogen flames do not emit visible light, so those flames had to include skin, paint, or rubber. Also, the gondola had wood panels and large diesel fuel tanks; it’s likely that these were a more immediate danger to the passengers than the much bigger fire going on far over their heads.

markm | 4/8/2007 07:02 AM CDT | #86194


Growing anything, jatropha, soy, corn, et c. requires huge inputs of diesel fuel for tractors, combine harversters, and trucks. There is also a huge chemical (read energy) input required for chemical fertilizers and pesticides (crop dusting avgas, anyone?). When you consider these factors bio-diesel becomes less attractive.

Any internal combustion engine can be tuned for oxygenated fuels, such as ethanol and methanol, so detonation is not a problem, but we cannot get around the fact that there is much less energy content per volume unit (gallon or litre, take your pick), which means filling a big tank every evening.

Forget nuclear; no-one has figured out what to do with the waste. Storing it somewhere in the hopes that future generations can solve that problem is criminally irresponsible.

And forget hydrogen; carrying the parasitic weight of a compressed gas fuel tank makes hydrogen transportation nearly impossible; the total energy input per mile would be ridiculous. 

Sorry to “gore” all your pet oxen; and no, I have few solutions yet. Maybe large-scale
hydrogen - carbon combining (and nitrogen fixing) in a solar furnace? I do take comfort that better minds than mine are working on this problem.

Larry Pogoler | 4/8/2007 05:21 PM CDT | #86203

Add a comment

Bottom of Comments | Original Post