Have you noticed that the weather is getting worse?

You should not put orange rind or any citrus in your compost. Screws up the Ph and slows doen the process.

Anyone watch the show "living with Ed"? He is over the top, but every now and then you pick up a good idea.

The weather is worse because God is angry at John Galt. LOL Originally Posted by Longermonger

Thats a little bit better, he tried to be funny

this may be getting serious...

I just saw that Chicago was hit by an earthquake, a small one to be sure but Chicago! Is this some portent or sign of things to come!!! LA, NYC, Washington DC, Chicago... what do they all have in common? No, really, what do they all have in common? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I was listening to the President last night and he seems to have lightened up on his energy bill stance and seems open to discussions on clean burning coal technology and even more open on Nuclear power. I agree with big mike when he says decisions being made are not whats best for the country but each individual party. I even agree with Monger that we need to conserve and look for alternative fuels, I just want it to be a reasonable, well thought out program with a goal of ending our dependence on the middle east. I dont think electric cars are the answer but there are other sources that are "green", hydrogen, natural gas etc.

... what do they all have in common? No, really, what do they all have in common? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Originally Posted by john_galt

"Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious."

... we need to conserve and look for alternative fuels, I just want it to be a reasonable, well thought out program with a goal of ending our dependence on the middle east. I dont think electric cars are the answer but there are other sources that are "green", hydrogen, natural gas etc. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I absolutely agree that we need to focus on alternative fuels. The current problem is lobbying of the oil and gas industry. They have a seemingly endless amount of resources in which to fight any energy bill that isn't favorable to oil and gas. This, to me, is damn near treasonous. If we focused our resources more towards nuclear we may be less inclined to be involved in Middle Eastern politics. It is a national security issue that is not properly addressed, hence the treasonous part of it.

One of the problems with us as Americans, is that we expect for any new alternative to work as well as the previous method. We hate to be inconvenienced. For example, we want our cars big and fast and with a quick way to refuel. With electric cars, they will be little subcompacts that will have to be plugged in possibly overnight to recharge. This would be the case until the technology improves...and it will improve. Vehicle options, as well as recharging times, would improve to a level we could not even imagine today. Internal combustion cars of the past are nothing like the vehicles of today. I think with the mixture of nuclear energy and electric cars, the future would have a much brighter outlook in respect to pollution control.

Below is a link to a non-biased report on lithium (needed for plug in cars).

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10077965-54.html

Short story - not enough lithium around to support converting the us fleet of cars to plug in...and its not so eco-friendly to tear up salt flats looking for lithium.

Hydrogen - it is very inefficient to make with electricity (I think 40%), so 60% of the energy is lost in the conversion. Also, there's the environmental concern of the mining operation necessary to get the platinum for the fuel cells. Below is a link describing its rarity (and the fact it comes from the arm-pit of the world):

http://global-economy.suite101.com/a...outpace_supply

Hydrogen can be produced by a chemical process from hydrocarbons...80% efficient getting it from natural gas for example...but why not just burn the natural gas.

Natural gas: I think it is a viable fuel for automobiles. It is easily transported through pipelines, it is not difficult to convert a contemporary engine to natural gas, its plentiful, and burns cleaner than gasoline. My only problem with natural gas is cost. Every winter, the cost goes up (COG factor). This is because people heating their homes are also competing for the commodity with power companies - coal has been so vilified that most new power plants are natural gas. I think its a crying shame to use such a versatile fuel in a power plant. Anyway, if it starts getting used large scale as a vehicle fuel, hold onto your wallets, the price will go up.

But, in complete seriousness, the solution to our energy problems lies in drilling for oil and gas, and mining coal in this country. Coal deposits are known to be a 200 year supply. Gas and oil are hard to pin down, but every few days, news of a massive find comes...turns out that even Haiti has large amounts of oil.

Where to start? First, the TRANSPORTATION sector is where the problem is. Unless you're proposing coal-fired or nuclear powered cars and trucks, please don't mix those in with your talk about alternative fueled vehicles. Also, there is a huge difference between ethanol made from corn, ethanol made from sugar cane, cellulosic ethanol, ethanol made from algae, methanol, butanol, gas-to-liquid fuels, etc. What's important is that the motorist is given an informed choice at the fuel pump (not just what is cheapest to burn, but most efficient overall).
Most alternative fuels have energy density and packaging problems. The long term solution will likely be pure electric cars with better battery technology than today. In the mid-term plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt look good. But we should already be driving lightweight aerodynamic flex-fuel cars...but we aren't.

But, in complete seriousness, the solution to our energy problems lies in drilling for oil and gas, and mining coal in this country. Coal deposits are known to be a 200 year supply. Gas and oil are hard to pin down, but every few days, news of a massive find comes...turns out that even Haiti has large amounts of oil. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

No. If you do this without breaking the OPEC cartel, then oil prices won't go down one bit. If you DO break the OPEC price fixing monopoly, then consumers can enjoy gas that is a full cent cheaper a decade from now. Woohoo! Not. That assumes that you convinced refiners to quickly build new refineries so they could get less money for their product. Also, did you factor in the cost of private oil companies drilling for oil that belongs to the American public and the pollution that it causes? How big is "massive" compared to world production? How soon will it change the price at the pump? How much will a driver save? The answer is that oil companies want to make more money from domestic drilling and they've fooled enough people to get their way. If things start to slip they'll just shovel more cash to lobbyists, ad agencies, and Republican politicians.

Longer, quite frankly I think you underestimate the cleverness of the oil companies. Presently, they are using their inability to drill to keep prices high. Presently they are using their inability to build refineries to keep prices high. By what clever plot, does opening up the market and allowing more of the product through domestic drilling raise the price?

Ethanol from sugar? Research the history of this in Brazil. Its been heavily subsidized for decades, and only profitable for a few short years when gas prices spiked.

Opec monopoly? You don't really think we get the majority of our oil from Opec do you? Best way to prevent them from fixing world prices, though: produce more oil elsewhere.

Our energy prices have dropped over the last 25 years, relative to inflation. That's a good thing - and courtesy of those big meanies who drill for oil and gas, and mine coal. I'd like the trend to continue.

Eventually, oil, natural gas, coal will run out - probably not in our life time. But, we need to research and lay the groundwork for future generations. Solar power - the sun is not going any where (if it does we're all screwed any way), wind power, ocean tides. Nuclear? What are we going to do with those spent fuel rods - no state wants to store them.

Big Oil has suppressed research since the 50's on alternative methods.

I think the most important research work that has been done in the last 50 years has to do with efficiency. More mpg out of an engine. All sorts of products to improve home insulation. Etc. Etc.

Solar - alot of research dollars have been thrown that way (think NASA). Still isn't very viable, especially when you factor in energy storage (need those darn batteries again).

Nuclear - definitely viable, used much more extensively in western Europe than it is here...but still more expensive than coal. I should know, Westar just won a rate decision, to raise my rates (Jeffries coal plant) to help pay for the cost of Wolf Creek Nuke plant. The company I work for had a hand in Wolf Creek, before I got here.

Wind - too scattered out to be viable due to need for transmission lines (remember they can't store the energy in the windmill). I have considered possibly using the windmill to produce hydrogen at the base of the wind mill. This would eliminate the problem of transmission, and the hydrogen is essentially a battery (although very inefficient). However, its not really worth pursuing, since the courts are already being flooded with windmill lawsuits (they aren't even allowed in the Flint Hills of Kansas due to 'viewshed' pollution). I think the public is going to rapidly grow tired of how they look and sound, and how much farmland they take up. My company is working on the infrastructure for a windmill project right now, and there's alot of roads and utilities required....so they have a big 'footprint'. BTW, I did a minor amount of work for the first large scale wind farm in Kansas (Gray County) myself, so the subject is not completely foreign to me.

Coal: Gets cleaner every day, major byproduct is harmless CO2. 200 year known supply. Modern plants have hydrostatic scrubbers to collect the fly ash, which we recycle and put into road base.

Natural Gas: Clean burning. Two years ago, a massive find in Canada. A year ago, two massive finds in the Gulf. My company is involved with a railroad in the deep south, and we deal with petroleum companies trying to put pipeline across the tracks. They are frantically building new lines (huge lines) from the Gulf region to the midwest and northeast. Obviously, they plan on having a plentiful supply for decades.

Oil: Also getting cleaner (remarkable difference when we went unleaded for example). Some fuel efficiency has actually been sacrificed in order to clean emmissions further (EGR System, AIR System, Converters, etc.) No known fuel today can fuel a car as efficiently as gasoline.

I like to look at energy sources from an engineering perspective. No emotion. No political agenda. I don't root for or against oil companies. I tend to not get my information from the Dixie Chicks or similar scholars. I have gotten 'muddy' with the data, and know how viability pencils out. Its certainly not a bad idea to look at potential energy sources...but the entire issue has been clouded with global warming....and I am of the opinion that global warming hysteria is severely harming our energy position in the world. I'm still waiting for somebody to prove global warming, or even explain away the previous warm periods in the planet's history.

"First, the TRANSPORTATION sector is where the problem is" I find it hard to believe that this is where the problem is. Can you show me some data on this, seems that coal power plants would produce far more emissions than cars but maybe Iam wrong. I think also that if this was truly the problem there would have been less emphasis on power plant energy in the Presidents program. But again, I may be wrong.

Dirty Dog, I haven't looked it up; but, I assume automobiles do produce more pollution than power plants. However, I think Longer is incorrect to categorize our energy needs into different 'sectors'. That is one of the major shortcomings of arguments that scream 'HYDROGEN' or 'PLUG IN CAR'...there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to where the electricity for plug in cars might come from, or how hydrogen is made (I swear some people think Hydrogen just flows out of the ground, as easily as say...oil). All of the 'green' concepts would require a large increase in what power plants produce.

Let's all invest in this car. It runs on water and gives off oxygen!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw"]YouTube- Water Car ... Daniel Dingel[/ame]