Can you imagine if we had spent 200 Billion creating an alternative fuel?

[Quixote1818]

We could have solved all our problems in the Middle East just like that! Once we perfected that alternative fuel then we would gain strategic advantage over the Mid East by selling our technology OR the new fuel we create to other nations. In the meantime Oil would become obsolete or at least of little interest to us and other developed Nations. Iraq and Saudi Arabia would no longer be strategic places and have little influence over us. Then we could pull out all our ships and move all our air bases from the area and bring our kids home. We could have defeated Iraq the old fashioned way. Make it's energy source obsolete. Then Saddam would never think to attack it's source of new, clean, efficient energy. That would be suicide!

That 200 Billion would then start coming back to us ten fold!

Instead we decided to kill 30,000 people and destabilize the whole World by attacking Iraq. Cost 200 Billion and rising! Smooth move Ex-Lax Bush!

Buy the way, how much do we spend on alternative fuel research?

[Nordic]

1. you must be one of those liberal idealists with no sense of reality

NOT.

I am so disgusted with the Repug fantasy-land version of the world.

Yes, you are 100% right.

And it is 100000% disgusting that we have squandered not only money but lives, goodwill, time, and everything else in this pathetic display of cognitive dissonance at work.

Vote Democratic -- we're the realists.

[leftofthedial]

2. you commie

the murkan way is to bomb foreigners dammit!

[mondohondo]

23. That's "Fur'ners" in Bushspeak

:7 My wife and I happend to be over at our local Toyota dealer this morning getting our van serviced. Just for kicks we wandered the lot to see what they were selling. We happened across a Toyota Prius. a car that is an electric-gas motor hybrid. This car gets 51 Mpg city driving and 60 highway!

As is bound to happen at a car lot, a salesman came along and asked if we had any questions. We learned that Toyota is planning on putting the same technology into its trucks over the next year or two, and we also learned that Ford will be offering something very similar in the near future.

The salesman said that they have an 18 month backlog on orders for this car and that Toyota is re-tooling two plants to begin production to meet the demand. It looks like a regular car and only costs a little bit more than comparable models.. If we'd have had the time we would have taken it out for a test drive but our van was ready and we had to go.

I think that the major carmakers can't help but take notice of the overwhelming demand for a highly fuel efficient vehicle like the Prius. If you get Newsweek magazine check out the special section about the future of energy in its September 20 issue. The car is featured prominently.

[Mr_Spock]

3. I've said this 1,000 times and everyone agrees with me.

We could just ignore those fools if we spent our money on alternative energy sources. This sort of Dubya cowboy stupidity is enough to put any sane person into a rage. Too bad most ignorant arrogant bigoted Americans secretly enjoy killing foreigners. Bush just LOVES to see that people are being killed when he is in charge. He is such an anti-Christ like figure in the world. A total fucking loser buffoon.

[wtmusic]

4. good pt

All kinds of better ways to spend the dough but that really drives it home

[alittlelark]

5. I can imagine it whenever I look into the eyes of my children.

I imagine that we are responsible adults w/ cojones. We would never allow our natural resources to be decimated by grand daddys.


I look forward to hunting them down - in a non SS and Corporate B*shit way.

They are erradicated, and my children are allowed to grow up w/o radiation or fear of the shriveled cohones of their leaders.

[kestrel91316]

6. Really, now, that would make WAY too much sense. n/t

[partygirl]

7. but we HAVE

had cars that worked on all kinds of alternative fuels. Back in the early days of the automobile there were all kinds of cars--The Stanley Steamers come to mind--I can't think of others off hand but I went to the auto museum as a child and there were all kinds of autos in the old days and they ran on a wide variety of fuels.

Ford just out competed them with the internal cumbustion gasoline powered engine. It isn't because we couldn't make a car that would run on womthing else--it is just that they didn't sell as well--or go as far--or as fast--stuff like that. What we need is for people to DEMAND them more. But I don't think it is impossible.

[Quixote1818]

9. The problem is the car companies don't want to spend the money

to change and they have too much power over our elected officials. The American people need to tell the Car companies they are out of luck and tell the Oil Companies change or die a good death! I am sure the 200 Billion could have been used one way or another to at least start moving us in a better direction.

[stldemocrat]

8. Yeah,

But how is Halliburton supposed to profit off of that?

[Pallas180]

10. You're absolutely right...but the invention is going to have to

come from outside the energy companies, like the guy who has invented corn fuel for cars, cause all of the energy companies are involved in
oil and involved in keeping themselves on top of a mountain of billions of dollars by using the US army for free to capture lands that have oil.

The little people are going to have to do it themselves.

A start would be to put solar panels, which are now smaller, on top of
our roofs or outside the apt to run electric.

And if I knew how to convert the engine to use corn oil I'd do it this
week.

[tedzbear]

11. We might as well spend the $ now because we'll need to do it eventually...

...peak oil is just around the corner.

[Dissenting_Prole]

12. And what would that energy source be?

No other source of energy that has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of replacing oil can be scaled up to that level.

Natural gas has peaked in North America. Less and less every year. Besides, we need it to make fertilizer.

Coal is dirty, heavy and no one wants their children to be miners, and the environment is destroyed by strip mining.

Solar energy has a low energy-return-on-energy-invested. Automobiling will require massive amounts of batteries, which are heavy and take a long time to charge, and they require lots of energy to manufacture.

Wind is too upredictable.

Nuclear. I'm not even going to go there, for the sake of your grandchildren. Besides, it will take years to build enough nuclear plants.

Ethanol's energy-return-on-energy-invested is about 1:1. A loser from the start. And you'll have to plant the entire country with corn. I would rather eat than drive, thanks.

Hydrogen doesn't even enter the discussion. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy, not a source of energy.

Bottom line is, if we want to continue living the way we have for the past 60 years we are going to have to accept the fact that the US is going to have to bomb a few contries to pulp. If you don't like that idea, buy yourself a Toyota Echo or a Smart car, or better still, a bicycle.

Otherwise, it's business as usual. And don't expect peace anytime soon under either Bush *OR* Kerry.

[ridgerunner]

13. What a great lead in

There is a great source out there that is overlooked due to nearly eighty years of propaganda: hemp.

Check it out. You might just make some money if you can prove Jack wrong.

http://jackherer.com/chapter09.html

[loudsue]

17. Great article, ridgerunner!!! I TOTALLY agree. BTW,,,Welcome to DU!!

:loveya: I REALLY like your first post on DU! :loveya:

I hope you will stick around and share some more of the goodies you have in your bag of tricks!

:yourock: I just printed out that article (actually, short chapter), and gave it to my sis-in-law. I think she & my brother & I will join your parade!!

If the U.S. DID legalize hemp, we could kiss the whole bush mafia 'good-bye'.

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[ridgerunner]

20. Thanks loudsue

Yeah, Jack Herer really is an amazing individual. He's responsible for opening the eyes of many, many people to the truth about cannabis prohibition.

I've debated cannabis prohbition with several people and not one of them can come up with a logical reason why we continue the madness. When you look at all the evidence it all boils down to one thing: money.

Hemp was outlawed to protect the petro-chemical industry and it's related allies. It continues to be illegal due to ignorance and greed.

Of course "marijuana" hysteria continues to cloud the debate. Many people still believe the lies that were propagated during the 1930's as a valid reason for destroying the Constitution.

A few years ago we had some lawmakers, and Woody Harrelson, making noise about bringing back the hemp industry to Kentucky. The Kentucky State Police were the most vocal opponents against their plan. The KSP actually claimed that if hemp were legal again, then marijuana farmers would hide their patches in hemp fields. Have you ever planted a garden? Cross pollination would ruin THC levels.

Ah, corruption and stupidity, the true American legacy.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/101.htm

[happynewyear]

21. what a great link ridgerunner!

:hi: and welcome to the DU and thanks for this link! :D

A great quote from it:

* Henry Ford grew marijuana on his estate after 1937, possibly to prove the cheapness of methanol production at Iron Mountain. He made plastic cars with wheat straw, hemp and sisal. (Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1941, "Pinch Hitters for Defense.") In 1892, Rudolph Diesel invented the diesel engine, which he intended to fuel "by a variety of fuels, especially vegetable and seed oils."

:dem: :kick:

[newyawker99]

22. Hi ridgerunner!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Occulus]

14. thermal depolymerization

featured in Discover magazine twice. The delay that's occurred in getting the pilot plant for this off the ground wasn't a problem with the process, but with the components themselves; I believe it had to do with welds of some sort.

The chemistry behind this process is sound. I strongly urge you to check it out, as you seem rather.... resigned.

Now, it doesn't seem like such a plant could produce much usable gasoline, until you consider the scalability of the process- a 'plant' could be mounted on the back of a flatbed truck, for example, eating trash and doling out gasoline or maybe some heating oil as a result. Matured, this idea could give us exactly that- roving trash refineries.

Googling the term "thermal depolymerization" retunrs a big pile of results. Look for the Discover mag article; it explains in more detail.

edit: here's some numbers from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Theory and process

Similar methods to create hydrocarbons use a lot of energy to remove water from the materials. This method instead uses water to improve the heating process.

The feedstock material is first ground into small chunks, and mixed with water if it is especially dry. It is then fed into a reaction chamber where it is heated to around 250 °C and subjected to 600 lb/in² (4 MPa) for approximately 15 minutes, after which the pressure is rapidly released to boil off most of the water. The result is a mix of crude hydrocarbons and solid minerals, which are separated out. The hydrocarbons are sent to a second-stage reactor where they are heated to 500 °C, further breaking down the longer chains, and the resulting petroleum is then distilled in a manner similar to conventional oil refining.

Working with turkey offal as the feedstock, the process proved to have yield efficiencies of approximately 85%; in other words, the energy required to process materials could be supplied by using 15% of the petroleum output. Alternately, one could consider the energy efficiency of the process to be 560% (85 units of energy produced for 15 units of energy consumed). Higher efficiencies may be possible with drier and more carbon-rich feedstocks, such as waste plastic.

By comparison, the current processes used to produce ethanol and biodiesel from agricultural sources have energy efficiencies in the 320% range when the energy used to produce the feedstocks is considered (in this case, usually sugar cane, corn, soybeans and the like).

The process breaks down almost all materials that are fed into it. TDP even efficiently breaks down many types of hazardous materials, such as poisons and difficult-to-destroy biological agents such as prions.

[JCMach1]

18. Whacked...!

Wind can be quite predictable...

Mass produced solar is becoming cheaper and lighter as we speak...

There is a huge future for clean coal technology... especially in power generation...

Batteries are becoming lighter and lighter...

The world is going to just have to accept lowered 'energy' expectations...

That's the big problem... and the thing that 'won't' happen...

[agincourt]

19. There are others.

Frozen menthane, tidal and ocean stream generating, geo-thermal, fusion, and others we haven't heard about yet. Likewise we probably would still be getting oil even if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

[Senior citizen]

15. Einstein expressed regret that the suggestion for the atom bomb

had to be given to a fascist country like this.

Nobody as smart as Einstein, or Meitner (the woman who discovered nuclear fission--Einstein called Meitner "the mother of the bomb")would choose to work for us.

It is precisely because we seek world dominance, and because an alternative fuel could give us world dominance, that we do not deserve it.

Our best hope is that under President Kerry we will cease being a rogue nation and become a good global citizen. His energy plan would reward conservation and promote energy independence.

The choice is between Enron/Halliburton et al, and we the consumers. President Kerry will tell Halliburton, "You're fired!"

In order to avoid prison, they might even cough up some of the $87 billion they claim to have "misplaced" and cannot account for in Iraq. That's almost half your research costs right there.

Start googling and find out if you can save any money by van-pooling to work, using public transit for at least part of your commute, or finding ways to conserve energy in your home, and donate any amount you save to the Kerry campaign. Maybe you can't achieve a total or 90% personal boycott of big oil and energy interests, but you should be able to achieve a personal best. Our future and our grandkids' future depends on it.

And for those of us who are already off the grid or maintaining a total (or highest level possible) personal boycott of big oil and energy--KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

:grouphug: :yourock: :hi: :bounce: :kick:

[Zulan]

16. How about the space program?

Can you just imagine what new wonders would have been invented if the money had gone into the space program? Can you say anti-matter?