chuck kottke’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Less is more..

  I believe in nuclear proliferation.  Every auto should use its own fuel pellets. Just imagine - drive a million miles between refuels; completely recyclable. And collisions will take on a whole new meaning!  And in the end, just pass the pellets on to the next generation..
    But seriously - all this high-minded stuff is pie-in-the-sky talk.  Making hydrogen from solar locally would be fine; maybe zeolite storage (an environmentally friendly medium)& either fuel-cells or IC engines would be OK - but do we need to go that far out on a tech limb?  Perhaps it will be part of the mix, but the Bush way would look more like Nuclear/Coal feedstock Hydrogen.  Clean, but with dirty roots.  Roots rooted in big wonderful firms like Haliburton.. And who could ever forget energy giants like ENRON (AKA - Bush's biggie contributors) - that's why independent producers makes sense, and real regulations on the industry.
    What's always missing is the efficiency component.  Maybe because there's not enough money to be made in it??  Gee, perhaps it just makes too much sense.  Pedal to the metal, and onward we go..  No lobbying organization for efficiency, so the way the Gov't. works today as a kick-back machine, it's no wonder things are messed up!  They tend to leave out all the gazillions in incentives to anything but renewables as well - it doesn't make as good a press..
    The old axiom holds true:  You get the Government that's paid for by the highest bidder.  We need to bring citizens back into play, and eliminate the role of giant corporations in the Government, lest we loose what few freedoms remain, and botch our own future.  This has a lot to do with the outcomes in energy and the economy - worth the while to see who's funding whom for office, and start choosing representative of we, the people.
    On Bush talks up nukes, ethanol, and technology at renewable-energy meeting posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Jump not to quick conclusions

  I've been milling over this problem for some time (as we all have!).  The 95% of the problem is simply efficiency; the 5% is production.  Basically put: we're fixated on solving this problem by production, when the real answer lies with efficiency mainly; production secondarily.  Consider the auto.  Slipstream designs and slower speeds on highways could double efficiency; better engine designs could double or triple that efficiency;  this means mileage 4-6X current levels is quite feasible, all without compromise!  Add better layouts for shopping & work (which is a lot of the driving I see being done), and more rail transportation - we really do have a long ways to go.
    I wouldn't write cellulose-based ethanol off the page quite yet.  Research into better and better enzymes (from fungi & termites) may help solve the riddle of cheaper ethanol from organic matter. As far as efficiency, it will beat corn-based ethanol - because biomass is easier to make than starch from a plant's perspective.  Reverse Osmosis might be the way to go for efficiency of separation for alcohol and water (vs. distillation).  Funny, isn't it - the termite runs quite well on biofuels!  Oh, if nature can do it, then why can't we??  I say - engage brain - there's an answer.  It took a leap to get silicon solar cells in the 50's; it's going to be a leap to get cellulosic ethanol up to max efficiency, but we can do it.  Even if it's only perhaps 4X the output of energy compared to input, it's still not bad.
    As far as solar-cell electricity-to-battery cars go, there's another good direction.  We simply must design better batteries though - all that lead, nickel, cadmium, lithium, etc. run environmental risks and are in limited supply - better to work on carbon nanotube supercapacitors, light metal cells, zeolites for H2 storage, etc. as prime movers. Making good advances in slipstream designs will make the miles go up as fast as anything.
    But the real answer is 95% efficiency; 5% newer & better technologies.  
    I sometimes wonder.. we have an economy that flies along at 100 mph, and never seems to stop and smell the roses.  Perhaps we ought to consider revamping our economy to promote quality of life, rather than quantity of stuff.  Locally grown food makes much more sense than food from hither, tither, and yon.  Locally produced power as well!  Just looking at electricity, if 90% of the energy is lost before you turn on the switch, does this make any sense either?  All the biofuel plants in the world are no real help, if the energy isn't being used wisely.  I think we should look to producing energy nearest the point of use - and using the waste heat generated to improve our lives as well - one could have greenhouses, houses, swimming pools, etc. heated with the energy lost in the transition to make electricity.
   Makes to much sense, though.  But markets will ultimately force the change to happen, as we cannot keep going all-out bonkers on expansion, and a more common-sense approach will then become common.
    On New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State posted 1 year, 8 months ago 46 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hybrid ships

  If we're shipping stuff all over the world, and there's a steady breeze some days - why not put out some sails?  I think, unless you're running a tight schedule, this makes good sense - save the energy for low wind days..
    Yes, oil is risky stuff!  If we factor in these ugly externalities, it might not look so cheap..  How do you undo the damage?  No real way - once it's spilled; it's there.  - better to not run the risk, and change sooner!!On Ship crashes in San Francisco Bay, leaks 58,000 gallons of oil posted 2 years ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bunkers of biomass would only leave driftwood..

    I was just thinking to myself..  Hmm- what else is risky about petroleum - ship collisions that spill it!  And sure enough, here's another..
    Bunker fuel is heavy stuff - come out near the bottom of the column in the refinery; it takes serious high-compression engines, and pre-heating just to run an engine on it.  
    Now, if that ship were powered by biofuel in its rawest form - lets say fuel pellets made from sawdust or switchgrass; or even just small wood chunks - what would be the worst?  Lots of bits of driftwood?  Hmm.. now there's fuel for thought!On Ship crashes in San Francisco Bay, leaks 58,000 gallons of oil posted 2 years ago 6 Responses