Comments JChan111 has made

More Info on Biofuels Driving Up Food Prices

I'm not trying to be hostile here, nor imply that everyone in oil is a bad actor greedy, only for profit. The same for biofuels. However, profit motive should drive new technology insertion and I'm not really seeing it in oil given the huge oil profits lately.

Biofuels, just getting started in many ways perhaps deserves some slack with regard to time to prove concepts and bring them to market to help replace oil.

Here's another article from the UK:

BioFuels Drive Up Food Prices

-JChan

Biodiesel...I Admire the Ad Venture...But ..

First I wanted to applaud you Sir for participating on Grist. Not many venture capitalists would do the same. You have my utmost respect Sir.

If I may try and play devils advocate for the moment on why biofuels may have economical obstacles (as compared to competing technologies):

1) Exxon is going to be selling all their service stations nationwide over the next few years. Why don't they just convert these to biofuels or E85 ethanol and help convince automakers to help make more E85 vehicles? Is there a scalability issue?
If cellulosic biofuels were reasonable to mass produce to make a large dent in the US energy picture, then why would a company with thousands of smart petrochemists shy away from such an investmentin existing infrastructure on every streetcorner in America? Afterall, even in the corn belt of the US there is a dire need for more E85 service stations with willing customers.

2. Can mass distribution of a "fluid" (take your pick (gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, ethanol, biofuel) by 20th century standards, compete (in the next few years) economically with home plug-in hybrid automobiles and what already exists in every home, namely electricity from the electric grid? I was going to also ad water, but water already also exists in every US home (food for later nano thoughts).

3. Many people see the Brazilian model of widespread ethanol use, but as Wolverine has pointed out in an earlier comment, there is a tremendous price to pay on the rain forests of Brazil. Brazil is a country mind you, where they monitor forests via satellite (a concern for the Brazilian gov), but even then trading millions of acres of ethanol producing sugar cane for a lush dense rain forest and all the dependent animal and plant species may ultimately be a huge price to pay for energy independence down the road. As ethanol becomes more expensive and treasured by Brazilian consumer markets (compared to the price of oil) this will only cause more farmers to clear cut forests and try to become a grower. They may appear to be managing this on the surface, but eventually with growing cities this model may become environmentally unsustainable in the years ahead.

-JChan

But What about BLM Blocking Solar???

Here's the article in NYTimes
I'm referring to.

I used to think folks were paranoid to think there is an "oil lobby" at work blocking any attempt at alternatives in the current administration.  Well the above doesn't make any sense, particularly since solar is coming on line rapidly, much faster than nuclear.  Even wind power is running into hurdles on BLM lands.

If private lands will be the future of the solar and wind industry, I suppose the government yet again is throwing out a potential tax revenue stream through leased land. Smart move BLM !

-JChan

Duh .....

enough said.

-JC

Atomic Motor

-JChan

$5.00 Galloon ...was $3.50 ..where's that Gas Tax?

Price keeps going up(predictably)..not hard to predict actually.  

We're all dupes I'm afraid. When are folks going to wake up to realize that a small 5cent to 10cent tax equivalent per gallon will help more than hurt this 'once in America's lifetime' situation?? to invest in new side industries in alternatives? and reduce demand and get speculators going into alternatives besides oil in bigger ways?

By 'rethinking' how we levy taxes in this situation, we (the 'non-oil rich' ) taxpayers could be making getting a tax break for a change, while cleverly funding alternatives. Reverse logic ..get it? It's all investor psychology.

But, unfortunately..it will be way too late before folks realize this...as they argue over nickel tax increases as too burdensom, all the while dollars deflate, real-estate sinks in valuation, and gas hits $200/barrel. A correction will then be in order.  But until then will tax payers benefit ..at all?

The price has already climbed way past the 5cent a gallon increase several smart economists suggested back when it was $2.80/gallon.  Has anything new federal funding (not borrowed from existing programs) gone into alternatives yet?  

Think about that one.

I'de like to be optimistic, but the tax structure needs a big rethink in my opinion. It will happen. One way or the other I'm afraid.
 

-JChan

Keep yelling ...I Think God May be Listening

My goal is to co-exist with what God placed here on earth ...with others and the environment, and to leave something for the next generation and help them along.

Same ideals ..different channel. Mine is the "God gave it all to us channel, what can I make of it to better mankind"

I wish you well.On Projected nuke-power renaissance spurs U.S. uranium-mining bonanza posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

Seawater Uranium ..200$ cap

Good points Bill. Excellent facts.

-JChan

Why are Japan, Korea and China Going Nuclear?

They're awake, instead of asleep at the wheel and see where the future is headed in my opinion.

They'll miniaturize and modernize atomic power, use plugin-hybrids to eventually reduce their smog issues, export their ideas to us and reap the rewards in jobs and new industries, but it won't all be a panacea of course(they'll still have environmental issues, particularly China).  

US? We'll still be fighting wars over oil because of our stupidity the way it looks to me.

-JChan

Imperial Valley Glows in Dark from Geothermal !!

Humor me for a moment ..

Call the LA Times !!....Even clean Geothermal is radioactive !!  TENORM and NORM (naturally occuring radioactive materials) are being extracted in Imperial Valley !! Stop the press.
TENORM and Geothermal in Imperial Valley, CA

Millions of tons of NORM created worldwide in mining industry, oil and gas !!!...
NORM - What is it?

Run for cover !!..we're all going to die !!!

Radon Gas in thousands of US Homes ..Oh no !!(thousands of cancer related deaths all over the US yearly)
Radon: a radioactive gas, but do you want it in your home?

Lesson learned:  Even God doesn't create a perfect world ..Risk needs to be weighed appropriately in any human endeavor.

Radiation surrounds us. Live with it. Develop sensors to protect us and feel safer(even in cell phones if it makes you happy). Create new industries to help do so.  We do have the technology and brains to do it smartly.

-JChan

Atomic Power + Desalination = Fresh Water

Excellent article, but I would also add that desalination on a large scale is possible using nuclear power. Right now the biggest issue with the Colorado river is 'over use' by everyone that's tapping it.

Hopefully there will be some left as populations continue to rise along it's path. I lived in Yuma for a couple years (and Tucson for 13) and even in the 1980's the Colorado was almost dry compared to the mile wide river it once was in places 100 years ago when steamboats made trips up and down.  

Lately Lake Meade/Lake Powell's water levels have gotten worse I hear. Along with fast growing cities, agriculture along the southern CA and southern Arizona CAP 'canal' isn't helping the water situation either.  Pipeline Curiosity Soars With Concerns

I would consider these issues to be as much a "risk"  to be weighed along with the risks of Uranium tailings entering the water.

Also, remember that the Ocean itself has billions of tons of natural Uranium salts dissolved in it and this could possibly be filtered out with massive desalination, reducing the need for mining Uranium eventually if people woke up in time to start an effort to use nuclear power in smarter ways and bring it into the 21st century instead of 1940's technology (last applied in the 1970's).

If floating nuclear plants were developed along coastal areas, Colorado river drinking water would not be needed someday(25 years?), easing the Colorado water issue and possibly helping to restore it someday to a reasonable level.  But of course since nuclear power is bashed repeatedly by environmentalists (and the LA Times), this probably won't happen until the NIMBYs realize their spigots have run dry and it's all a wee bit too late by then to do anything in the nick of time (except the easy solution of building a lot of new coal plants!!!). Same old same old.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, I'm sorry to say. If solar could ramp up to produce gigawatts in energy density quick enough along with wind power it could possibly help with desalination.

However, this will take educating a lot of Californians and Arizonan's (and the US) to help.

Then again, there is the distinct possibility of using 'cold fusion' someday in small power stations(a distinct possibilty), but I won't go into that here, it's likely to get bashed too and besides being absolutely real isn't enough of a story for the LA Times to even look into it..even if it happened to light up non-believers at the summer Olympics.

 Atomic Motor BlogOn Projected nuke-power renaissance spurs U.S. uranium-mining bonanza posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

Little or No Investment in Other Tech Industries

Gates being a smart person, must have a reason for doing this. It may just be as simple as he left investments on autopilot and let managers manage them. If that's the case then at worse he's a little near sighted perhaps and not realizing what he's invested in. Buffet being a 'hawk' when it comes to his investments is being more prudent.

Just because someone is a genius in software technology investment doesn't necessarily imply it correlates with good corporate and environmental stewardship or appears wise to other environmentally savy folks.

My hunch is his money managers have a hand in this, even though he himself would not approve of such a move.  However, maybe the coal industry is a huge Microsoft customer.  

My suggestion would be to use the purchasing power you have to make big statement in that regard.

-JChan

Ruby Suns

..I particularly like how the Youtube video turned out !  great.

-JChan

327 Trillion?...

Amazingdrx,  
Yes, but if I may interject as I read the entire quote correctly it states:

Electricity generation from coal in 2006 fell 1.1 percent from 2005 to 1,991 million MWh. In the past decade, generation from coal declined only one other time, between 2000 and 2001. Coal's share of total net generation continued its slow decline over the past decade, from its peak of 52.8 percent in 1997 to 49.0 percent in 2006. Coal-fired plants continued to be the primary source of baseload generation. However, its share of total net generation decreased notwithstanding that total net generation increased by 0.1 percent. This was attributable to continued growth in natural gas and nuclear generation, reflecting the cumulative effects of the growth in natural gas-fired capacity and upgrades of nuclear power plants that emerged following 1997. It also reflects a reduction in net summer coal-fired generating capacity, with 967 MW retired or derated, only partially offset by 542 MW of new capacity.

see: Nuclear Power in Competitive Electricity Markets

Upgrades in existing systems, more efficient electric generator technology, fuel efficiencies etc are helping to improve generation output. There's a technological limit as to how far you can streatch efficiencies. Eventually with a growing populace new generation capacity will be needed. Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear. They are all competitive these days. They all have environmental impacts.

-JChan

-JChan

Nuclear Power vs the Other Parts of the Energy Pic

Bill, excellent comments.

Yes nuclear provides a large amount of the US energy solution. Perhaps the most "HIGHLY regulated" industry we have, yet it still does this day and night reliably. Is the entire fuel cycle perfect? No, there are waste storage issues. But dealing with that risk should be weighed appropriately in 'context' with other risks we all face as a nation (and world).

One other factoid people often forget is the actual energy consumption picture for the US.
See this chart?
Energy Challenges in a New Era of Science Energy, Politics, Society, and Science from the DoE publication available on this web site: DoE http://www.sc.doe.gov.

Can some of the proposed 100% environmentally friendly "alternatives" replace these coal and gas figures quickly enough to make even a small dent in the energy picture?  Notice the large anount of energy we depend on here in the US from these sectors. This is a serious technological issue.

The biggest item on ths list is *WASTED* energy ..that's energy loss occuring in transport across the US grid essentially. This includes losses in motors (air conditioners in our homes, wires, water heaters, light bulbs...you name it).  Stopping these BIG losses is the quickest and easiest means to reduce our consumption of coal, oil and help alternatives like wind and solar power become viable (reduced losses in wires to transport their energy to grid and US homes). At the same time new materials science R&D will help improve the efficiency of these technologies.  Are oil companies investing in these areas with all their newly found profits?  Compared to the average percentage from other tech industries ..Hardly.

Nuclear *could* rapidly expand (using new technologies) to fill a big piece of that gap.
But of course, many folks still have an absurd idea about what nuclear technology is all about without becoming better educated. For starters ..a nuclear reactor is not a BOMB. Far from it. Many technology issues we see today in nuclear power are materials science issues designed into ssystems from 'old technologies' from three to four decades ago. Materials science has made great strides since then.

Of course, I'm also in favor of dealing with the waste issue even low level NORM( Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials) generated by MANY industries (even coal and oil and medical industries) by the MILLIONS of tone world wide each year (not even including the stuff from reactors)instead of 'ignoring it' like most environmentalists would often do.  They tend to wrap all "waste" as nuclear reactor waste and stop any good efforts to deal with even the low level waste. NO ..not all waste should be treated the same. Period.

They want their cake and eat it too. A world full of peace and tranquility, no strife, no hard design decisions to trade off and of course ..absolutely 0% risk free world ..as if any engineering endeavor mankind has ever done could possibly live up to that. Even mother nature can't live up to that.  Risk is a fact of life. Live with it. Adapt to it. Find smart ways to manage it with the technoology brains we have as Americans and what the world still admires us for.

In a way, extreme enironmentalism without a weighing of risk (as James Lovelock would also agree with I'm sure) is doing a great harm to our nation and world ..even though many mean well.

They are also helping to delay the inevitable technological solutions and decisions we all need to make and implementing smart alternatives by their lack of *education* on risk and risk mitigation via other technological means.

Much like oil companies do by promises promises promises over many years to wean us all off oil, but instead walk away to 'bank money' instead of 'banking' on new ideas that they sell as their claim to justify why oil prices need to be so high to recoup investment in new ideas and drilling areas(even in foreign lands).  OK, where are their new ideas now at $120/barrel? they claimed when oil was $20/barrel they would have. There is no easy road. We can all see this blatantly now.

All *risks** have to be weighed appropriately in society and dealt with appropriately. Some more than others depending on what is more important for our national security.

Go ask a US soldier who he's fighting for. You and me to come up with good ideas and ways to get us off of oil. For God's sake let's honor their spirit and do it.

-JChan

Oil Increases are Driven by Pure Speculation

Plain and simple. The root cause of the recent price spike in oil are because of speculation. (If you don't mind reading a long argument in favor of increased taxes read on ..)

Let's face it, how many of us have mutual funds that heavily invest in the energy sector?  Whether we realize it or not many Americans do. A good % of profits that oil companies are making is feeding the gains in these energy sector mutual funds in my opinion. Add to that the speculative 'greed' common during these types of run ups and we basically get what we're seeing today and then wonder what's going on. Of course worldwide demand is increasing. Of course course oil is getting harder and more expensive to find. These are also realities.

For a good perspective on this issue read this business week article: There is No Oil Shortage" by Ed Wallace.

The oil shortages today do remind me of the games of the past. Oil has once again been pegged to the 'need' to produce profit gains in my opinion. Just look at what happened today when Exxon didn't make their expected industry quarterly earnings. They still made many billions, but the market wanted even more and sold their stocks.  Why?  Probably to justify the increases already factored into the market by speculators (in my opinion).

It's very disheartening to see what we've become as a nation. Oil is making huge profits, yet not one oil company I've read about appears to be heavily investing in alternatives justified by the huge profits they are raking in. Why? For instance, during the internet boom, companies that needed new capabilities they didn't have in-house frequently bought other companies. Cisco is a good example of such a wise investor in outside technology.  Now ask yourself this. Have you even heard one peep out of an oil company doing essentially the same? Buying smaller newer and greener companies to change the energy industry and inject new ideas into the US economy?  Nope.  Why is that?  There is something fundamentally wrong when you see this sort of thing in my opinion.

My feelings are because they don't know how to invest in new R&D approaches outside of their expertise areas (oil, gas and even coal). Plain and simple. They are essentially fixated on oil supply and demand issues and stuck in operations mode most of the time.

Finding new oil wells, even drilling out at sea in deeper wells if they have to to meet the demand by consumers. Afterall, there's a refinery shortage and supply issue as reported in the news media. Correct?  Do we Americans seriously think they have the R&D 'know how' in-house to try new approaches like improved battery technology using nanotechnology or new materials science ideas from many good ideas and places across America? If they did, why aren't they doing it in a large and visible way? How many university R&D programs are being funded by wealthy oil companies? How does it stack up to profits?

We are also essentially asking oil companies and individuals who invest in oil to 'put themselves out of business' if they shift to alternative ideas.  Gee, I wonder how many would willingly sign up for that?  

This same type of oil run-up and shortage driving up prices (I'm beginning to now wonder what the last one was all about) happened in the late 1970's and early 1980's. We are essentially back to the same situation as then, yet has the oil industry made any significant progress in weaning us off of oil yet in 30 years? Even with the federal governments help and tax incentives it hasn't.

Adding a new tax thus sounds contrary to common sense but, we really need to add a small tax of a few cents per gallon equivalent to oil revenues, not remove the existing ones at the pump if we want to reduce demand.

Removing existing taxes would only put a small dent in the almost $2.00/gallon run-up in gas prices we've seen the last two years. Instead a small tax(or reduced oil tax incentive) would actually decrease consumption and help fund alternatives, but only if the funds raised go into investing wisely in a dedicated 'alternative energy fund' up on the hill towards alternatives.

The funds raised (like the road tax does currently) could then be used to 'incentivise' competition in new ways like small X-prize initiatives in automotives, and miniature power plant development.  It can be done. Taxes *can* be done in a smart ways.

Removing an existing road tax to give consumers a summer break is petty politics and would actually cost more in the longer run by upsetting this industry and end up hurting existing funding for road and bridge improvements across America. Not a good thing if infrastructure issues are also on your agenda as 'things that need improvement' across the USA. But getting elected?  Yah, I suppose some would enjoy buying some votes perhaps. To me that's what it would look like.

There's no way around it in my opinion. Either oil revenues need to be 'smartly invested' by oil companies (and privately wealthy individuals who benefit from property they own with oil and gas rights) as they rake in profits, or we red blooded US citizens need to wise up and learn from the mistakes we've been through - one too many times already. Our US soldiers are paying dearly for this boondoggle in oil revenue generation that benefit mainly the wealthy.

We should  honor the spirit of our soldier's hard works and deeds by adding a tax, contrary to what sounds politically correct or expedient, or we'll be stuck in this foreign oil dependency 'muck' for decades to come.

Looking around me day to day, I still see far too many large cars on the road. This to me means folks are still willing to pay for higher gas prices and many appear to be able to afford it.

OK, so let's improve our US incentives to the auto industry and consumers to build and buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and hybrids. Let's tax those who can afford larger vehicles for instance when they purchase these cars. This will change buying habits and the auto industry to be greener and help their current initiatives take further hold.

Letting the oil industry 'control' the future of our alternative energy R&D in the US seems to me to be the very epitome of stupidity and a very risky venture particularly with US soldiers lives at stake defending oil sources overseas with the 'hope' that they'll be able to play friendly some day with the local natives and recoup the investment (I won't hold my breath).  I like most Americans are growing tired of this oil driven foreign escapade in securing contracts for 'easy oil'. There are no easy roads out of oil dependence.

We need to invest in alternatives and tax oil if nanything to 'wake folks up' to the realities of the 21st century we all face. If it were solely up to me I'de even go further and heavily tax oil until the wealthy start complaining, but we do need a realistic tax that is affordable by everyone that helps change our US energy posture.

A small tax (or virtual tax based on reduced tax breaks) would help drop consumption, stop some of the speculation and finally fund alternative energy approaches after 30 years of waiting and making the same mistakes again and again. Are we Americans awake yet?

Enough of the oil stone age.  Let's move on..  

-JChan

We'll Never Beat C02 ..There Are Bigger Issues..

I'de like to join the "drink the coolaid to beat C02 party", but lately I've come to the conclusion and I also see many others [ recent Nature March/April articles as examples] that trying to stop mankind's C02 imprint is the equivalent to (excuse the analogy) trying to stop the whole world from flushing daily. It's about on that scale as far as changing human behavior, educating the growing populace and redirecting the path of the underdeveloped world's awakening to mass consumerism worldwide.  What's that old saying.."as you teach ..so shall others follow?"

I predict that within ten years CO2 issues will look old and outdated compared to materials sustainability issues with water, natural resources (lumber), and fisheries, and other food issues while environmentalism will continue to be the "blessing and curse" high trapeeze balancing act we;ve all by now learned to grwo and love. Any new ideas that try to germinate and take hold and spread will need to clearly demonstrate a prudent approach to balancing "risk analysis" and educating millions worldwide on just what that really means. Probably the biggest lesson of this century unfolding that I see currently.I am optimistic, but the enormity of the challenges we should not underestimate.

I'm beginning to think this will be a combination of the "quantum" and  "crisis century". The potential to unleash so many blessings unto the world, but the scope of the human challenges may be very overwhelming by even 2030 by some estimates that I've been reading. A fine balancing act indeed...and a race in many ways.  

I'm glad to see some 'DoE retirees' sticking their necks out to educate more. Sorely needed! Hopefully for our children's sake some ideas and lesson's learned (over many years) will take hold and grow as we have seen in the last two or three years as the mass media becomes more educated on all the various engineering, technological, psychological and educational issues needed to really make progress. Keep praying ...

-JChan