We try to find an alternative, and this is what we get.
Related
Related Posts
- In stunning reversal for people of SC, utilities manage to kill solar bill AFTER it passed overwhelmingly
- Belated congrats on a bipartisan solar victory
- The legislative showdown between SC utilities and reformers
- Promising first step on lifting SC’s solar cap
- The conservative case for clean energy
- Harry Reid’s leaving. So can we open Yucca Mountain now?
- Sheheen asks Moniz to spare us the nuclear waste, thanks
- Environmentalists beg to differ with Gov. Haley
- Clyburn says MOX to keep going until end of year
- Graham grills Moniz on MOX
Hate to break it to ya, Brad, but all that ethanol, E-85, and renewable fuels stuff ain’t ever gonna work. Even ignoring the massive subsidies – we’re talking about many $billions here – needed to bring ethanol close to gasoline prices there is no way we’ll ever be able to grow enough biofuels to make things work. To satisfy the gas market, we would have to plant every square inch in this country with corn and other suitable crops and I just don’t see that happening.
LexWolf, you are on the right track. Brad, Lester Brown’s Fortune article has been on http://www.e4ag.com for a couple months now, and his book, Plan B is a great primer on the world’s resources. Alternative fuel is a great political “silver bullet solution,” but like Paul Tsongas used to say, “I’m not Santa Claus.”
A serious energy policy begins with conservation, then captures waste, then turns to sources which require an energy input. This is the approach I will use as Commissioner of Agriculture.
Our incumbent commissioner must have had an interesting experience driving his corn-decorated E85 Chevrolet Avalanche to Brown’s talk in Charleston last week.
Can farmers make money from alternative fuels? Maybe, maybe not. See the New York Times article from a couple days ago “As Investors Covet Ethanol, Farmers Resist” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/business/02windfall.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
for a glimpse of what farmers feel. They correctly sense yet another corporate grab for government-funded profit at their (and our) expense.
During this campaign, I talk about Value vs. Volume. South Carolina is not poised to make the most of something for the cheapest cost, but we are capable of making the best of something. The commodity fuel market is like other volume markets — prices are determined globally, but production costs are local.
Since we pay an enormous energy bill by shipping our food an average of 1500 miles, I advocate more local food from small, medium, and large farms–and the ocean–as a way to combat food prices, invigorate our rural economy, and keep us safe.
Lucky for us, it tastes better, tourists love it, and it helps attract the “creative class” and their investment capital.
Put Your State On Your Plate,
Emile DeFelice
Candidate for Commissioner of Agriculture
Electric cars.
South Carolina’s best bet for energy is to recycle the spent nuclear fuel from the rest of the world and the 16,000 nuclear bombs from the USSR into fuel for our electricity generation. That can be used to power small, cheap, electric around neighborhoods for errands, and charge fuel cells for highway vehicles.
If we had not allowed the 100,000,000 immigrants and illegal aliens to come here since 1970, we would only need about half the energy we use today. It’s not too late to evict everyone who is here on a scam, and institute zero population growth.
Nuclear energy is a smart way to go. Who said it — Glen Beck? “Build a hundred nuclear plants in the middle of Kansas or Nebraska or any flat state to produce lots of electricity”. Of course, nuclear is the same political football that oil in Alaska is, so it’s very unlikely that anything will come of either option. That is, unless we elect some actual representatives and leaders in the next 5 – 10 years. Also, very unlikely.
Actually, Spencer, I think a political consensus has been forming around nuclear for awhile now. We just need to get on the ball and get going, and stop all this pointless jawing about Yucca Mountain. Git ‘er done, as Robert’s cartoon says today.
And you go, Emile. You’re our boy, no matter what those pointy heads at The State paper say (I think maybe this is how split personality syndrome begins).
I miss Paul Tsongas. I wish we could bring that ol’ boy back to life; I’d vote for him. In fact, I think I will anyway. But I’m just romanticizing the dead, I guess. I’d still have problems with his "socially liberal" side. This reminds me of a post I wanted to put up today. Watch for it momentarily.
We can generate 20% of our electricty with windmills. Conservation can save another 20%. Add 20% for nuclear and viola we’ve eliminated 60% of greenhouse gas emissions generated by powerplants.
Windmills are uglier than billboards, and kill thousands of birds. Better to reduce the population by 20% by deporting those who sneaked and scammed their way in here, and ending welfare subsidies for bastardy.
I vote for nukelar. But for the short term if we would simply let American companies drill for oil in N. America, we could stop buying Arab oil. A House led by Democrats will end any possibility of a smart energy approach.
Anybody know anything about windmills? Not the “big ugly” kind, but ones which would fit on tops of houses. Basket, cylindrical types with protectors for birds. Seems like it ought to work in high wind areas, especially at beaches. Not necessarily 100% power for a single house but enough to make a dent in your monthly electic bill.
And why can’t we “harness the wind” generated by the movement of an electric car?
Lee wants to institute zero population growth? How’s that to be done? Thinking of Chinese style, or what?
It is not necessary to “institute” zero-population growth. We had that in 1968. Our population would have stabilized at 170,000,000 in 1970 had the courts and politicians opened the floodgates of legal immigration, refugees, bogus refugees, and illegal aliens.
Even worse, most of those who have come here have been some of the most backward people on Earth, uneducated, illiterate, and lacking Western notions of morality. They were brought here to advance the political agendas of manufacturing constituencies, and for cheap labor to sustain the crude 19th century models of economic growth by quantity rather than quality.
Lee, you said “institute zero population growth.” Then you turn right around and deny it. Interesting. But you’re not famous for admitting a mistake.
Dave writes:
“But for the short term if we would simply let American companies drill for oil in N. America, we could stop buying Arab oil. A House led by Democrats will end any possibility of a smart energy approach.”
I’ve got news for you Dave. Oil companies are drilling like crazy for oil in the U.S. and finding very little. Our imports are going through the roof and will only continue to do so no matter how much we drill. It’s a simple case of supply and demand. We just don’t have much more easily obtainable oil left. The oil in the Gulf and in Alaska is extremely difficult to get at and it’s very energy intensive to bring to market. It’s much cheaper to simply buy it from OPEC.
The only hope is windmills, nuclear and conservation. (Or we can take Lee up on his suggestion and ship millions of people somewhere else.
Windmills are becoming much more efficient than they were 20 years ago. Just ask the folks in Denmark. The bird-killing issue has largely been solved. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think they look pretty cool.
Nuclear safety has been greatly improved over the past 20 years so it’s probably time to bring that back into the equation. Since coal is dirty and dangerous to the workers nuclear starts to make sense.
What I don’t understand is why there is so much resistance to conservation? Can’t we replace incandesant light bulbs with the spiral ones? Can’t we dry clothes on the line? Can’t we walk or bike more than we do to get places? We would benefit in many ways besides staving off the inevitable energy collapse. Our bodies would be healthier. Our pocketbooks would be fatter. There are just no good reasons not to conserve.
Bud, you are asking Americans to walk? Horrors! Actually, walking anywhere in Lexington is a dangerous business. And I notice that they aren’t putting in bike lanes as they widen SC6. Too bad; I would ride a bike, too, but I’d sure buy a lot of life insurance before I did, as the chances on my wife cashing in on the policy would be very high.
What’s wrong with shipping millions of criminals and freeloaders back to their native countries?
In fact, if we make it impossible for them to find legal employment or receive any welfare, education or medical care handouts, most of them will go back before they starve to death, which will save us the shipping costs.
Anyone who turns a blind eye to the excess population created by government policies and illegal aliens has no right to pretend to be concerned about environmental problems.
Bud, you need to do a little research on how much oil we have in N. America but are politically constrained from getting it.
Herb’s wife to Herb – Load up on that life insurance, I just put a bicycle on Xmas layaway.
Sorry Dave. There just isn’t much oil left in the U.S. There hasn’t been a major find in over 30 years. Older wells are running out. The new finds in the Anwar and Gulf simply are not that that significant. And it will take a huge amount of energy to bring these to market. An all-out drilling effort (which I’m not oppossed to) might buy us an extra year or two but eventually we’ll have to come up with alternatives. Conservation will buy us more time and there are no drawbacks to it. Why not do what has the greatest potential? Conservatives are really behind on this issue.
Windmills, the big “unsightly” ones (to some) as well as individual, homeowner types. Nuclear, a proven and immediately available technology but still a political football which will take another 20 years to overcome.
Conservation? Lazy, apathetic, spoiled Americans simply will not do something like this until “the well runs dry”. When the lights go out, then they’ll conserve but not before.
All energy sources require a certain amount of energy input before they are usable by the end consumer. The ratio energy out vs energy in is very critical in determining what is economically viable. For the past 100 years oil had a very high eo/ei ratio, much better than coal, nuclear or wind. But that is starting to change, especially with regard to U.S. supplies. Nuclear and wind have just about caught up. Photovoltaics are still way behind and probably will not be viable as a major energy source. Same with U.S. made ethanol. Brazilian ethanol is better. All options must be evaluated on their merits and not on political posturing. Domestic oil drilling is not the long term solution. Even middle-eastern oil will soon “peak”. American ingenuity will find the answers, but only if we look at this objectively. And I don’t think that’s possible with oil men running the administration.
It takes 2 gallons of farm fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. That is why it is a pork barrel project requiring subsidies. It is not economically feasible. Tom Daschle pushed it for his home state of South Dakota.
Continuiamo a non trovare sulla vostra rivista la notizia dell’invenzione del moto perpetuo e come tutti gli altri ne dovrete rispondere in tribunale: perchè non volete parlare dell’invenzione del moto perpetuo e quindi dell’energia gratis e quindi dell’acqua gratis? Ci penseranno gli avvocati a chiedervelo.
http://domenico-schietti.blogspot.com/2006/12/il-primo-esemplare-di-motore-di.html
Il primo esemplare di Motore di Schietti clandestino è stato consegnato
Svolta nel mondo dell’energia, è stato inventato il moto perpetuo, free energy per tutti!