GWB wants to send it down here. You can keep it, thanks very much. :3eye:

We have to become smarter with our energy production and use, but some of the ideas going around are crazy (like using wind power in areas with erratic, and unpredictable wind conditions). I favour nuclear energy as long as the disposal of waste is worked out, and so far what I have read (not here - I mean in press releases), sounds more like Disneyland, than reality. Hydrogen cells for cars also sounds good - cost is the problem for cars, but the cost/benefit for public transportation is not bad.

What about solar?

Yes, I should have mentioned solar. We are using it more and more down here, but it is still expensive.

I'm told you'd get methanol from fermentation of cellulosic corn waste -- the stalks and shucks. Makes sense to me -- there's a reason they called it wood alcohol once upon a time.

Popular Mechanics once mentioned something called "dissociated alcohol" -- using the waste heat going out the exhaust manifold (c. 20% of the energy evolved from burning the fuel, used to expel the burnt charge from every combustion and not available at the crankshaft) to crack alcohol into two gases, CO and H2, and burning these in the cylinders without even needing the engine up to temp. It was supposed to up the mileage by quite a bit. Anything to this?

FWIW, somebody patented the process.

Solar: high installment cost, low running costs. Helpful to have a nice big desert handy... make photovoltaic units as immortal as you can and you'll see a steady long-term increase.

The ultimate in photovoltaic by any process is a Dyson sphere, however. Sci-fi types have wondered just how much such artifacts would resemble red-giant phase stars from a long way off.

Solar power works exceptionally well in places like the Meditteranean, but in the UK we dont get enough sunlight to power the generators. There are other alternatives though, which Govts overlook because theyve always been considered "kooky". Well, the kooks were right all along, and unless something changes drastically, the planet is fucked.

1. Just for the record, the US (rightfully) never signed the Kyoto treaty - as it was ONLY aimed at bringing the standard of living of the "haves" down to that of the "have-nots". The only limits were to be placed on the "wealthy countries".

A question for you, what percentage of CO2 emitted during 2006 do you suppose was emitted by natural emitters (volcanoes, etc), and what percent was emitted by the people of the USA?
Why do you suppose most "liberals" oppose any of the many possible alternative energy sources available (Teddy Kennedy opposed a wind farm near the "Kennedy Compound"). Could it be an overwhelming sense of guilt for having more than many other countries?

2. The Geneva Convention rules for treatment of POWs do not apply to people not in uniform (non-combatants) except to authorize their execution as spies when they are apprehended acting as combatants. Al Qaeda did not have a representative at the Geneva Convention, and are not signatories of that treaty.

Where did you get that idea????
 

One group of my ancestors came to Texas in 1834, and another group in 1852. The entire country was settled LONG before the invention of the automobile. My Grandfather (who lived until I was 29 years old), never saw an automobile until he was a grown man.

This is a "chicken or egg" argument. The reason we took to the automobile as we did was the already existing open space in the country

Jerry Murdock

Incorrect. June last year the US Supreme Court decided by a 5-3 vote that in effect granted al- Qaeda terrorists the same rights as American soldiers.

How does the Supreme Court get the authority to unilaterally alter the Geneva Convention? :right:

The manufacturing process for solar cells needs to be improved markedly before it becomes a viable option for mass production. At the moment the expense and the detrimental environmental aspects are the main problems. Once they're up and running they're great though. We never pay for hot water in our house. That's the only solar device we have atm though.

Do they address hydrogen's diffusion through metals concerns? This link is to a technical paper, not necessarily clear to a layman like me, but there does seem to be a real problem with storage, especially at elevated temperatures (cryo has less of a problem this way), of gaseous hydrogen.

What I make of it is that in simple terms, the H2 molecule reacts with the surface of the metal of its storage container to break apart into single hydrogen atoms whose minuscule size permits them to diffuse into the metal's crystalline structure and eventually to head right on out.

Too, there's metal-hydride storage, trying to take advantage of this property of gaseous hydrogen, but questions of weight and of energy density need to be answered satisfactorily.

I have no problem with the assertion that there are kinks to work out with it currently.
The same is true with most plans.
Bio-fuels, per-gallon put more contaminants into the environment than regular fuels because the manufacturing is not up to speed yet.

What was missing in the president's list of alternative energy? Hydrogen. The myth about hydrogen fuels even got to the White House. Hydrogen as a medium such as a battery? Maybe. Hydrogen as a fuel - it was a myth.

Meanwhile alternative energy sources - the solution to global warming - have been recently demonstrated in solar cells. Solar cells tend to be only efficient at particular frequencies. Solar cells are typically 10% and sometimes as high as 22% efficient. However a recent demonstration has managed to convert more frequencies into electricity. Efficiencies of up to 40% may be coming.

Brazil already demonstrates bio-fuel that is economically viable. US does not have that process for ethanol. Therefore the US imposes massive tariffs to keep Brazilian ethanol out of America. Again politicians making science decisions not in the interest of science or the economy.

One need only visit the attic on a winter day to appreciate how much energy is available - dissipated by a roof. Solutions exist. Just not where politicians somehow know science - scientists be damned. Hydrogen as a fuel - total myth. Nations who solve gobal warming by doing science will have more jobs and the new products. Even George Jr's State of the Union speech no longer listed the hydrogen myth.

Why does everyone speak of these tariffs as if we cannot just get rid of them in one day?
Just get rid of the damn things.