patrick.net

"Screw all that paper crap going on, we would have real strength and real value."

not to mention if we invested in our energy dependence, we could start pulling our troops back from the middle east much quicker, thereby saving money, and increasing the strength of our armed forces.

Trying to fix that part of the world just for their oil has proven itself to be far more expensive than just developing energy independence ourselves.

whoops, dependence=independence

That's fucking classic. All those old people on their Rascals might win if the crowd swells and they push back at the same time. Then they force the government's hand and the riot police are forced to use the dreaded EMP ray. Thousands of old people sitting in the streets now calling out for the government to get them out of the sun. Some try to get out but fall to the ground and can't get up, so they push their LifeAlert tm, buttons but those have been rendered useless. It is slow motion chaos as the scene backs out in the classic Gone with the Wind widening above ground angle growing and showing more and more slow moving old people crawling around.

On deflation vs. inflation, I tend to agree with OO. We have to inflate. Any other path leads to a very bad situation.

But, if they want to inflate, they'd better do it fast, and it better be drastic.

I don't think a Hitler would rise up in America. I certainly wouldn't discount similar figures rising up in some other countries as things get worse though.

TOB, yes, that's one of many types of biofuels. They can also get fuel from algae. My thought which I am sharing for the first time here, someone will steal my idea, is instead of corn, switchgrass has a good yield. My thought is to take all the lawn shavings that go to make mulch (Yard greens recycling) and sell them to a biofuel maker. How ironic would that be? That leisure wasteful activity of mowing a lawn that those sand flies in the middle east hate so much would actually be our fuel for independence. With a gas sipping plug in hybrid most of us could get by with the equivilent of a full tank of fuel each year. It will completely change the world, and that is why although I am pissed off about things I do still hold out hope.

Cool, they had the trampoline episode. Imagine a buch of seniors on the ground. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceWZ624wBVA

Neutron,

Could not agree more about nuclear power. We need to get smart about it and look to France and Britain as good examples of how things can be done with closed fuel cycles and the right types of reactors.

There has been too much entropy on the policy side of nuclear power, it needs to settle down.
But like in the financial system, GOOD regulation is essential.

>> Write in Ron Paul, and vote against every incumbent. Stop this BS fake election.

mickrussom,

THANKS!

LETS DO IT!!

Oil price may go so low that people laugh at alternative energy.

For a short while that is.

It will. Like all commodities it is going to go down. When it goes into the low $2s I will then remind everyone who didn't think it could that I predicted it would a year ago. When it does I will be all for taxing gasoline in order to give grants to move to energy independence. I think the movement has finally caught on and isn't going to reverse itself. The time has come and there's no going back now.

TOB and Malcolm, I do not believe in alcohol (== ethanol) as an effective oil replacement for vehicular transportation, at least at the moment when ethanol it is being made from corn mainly.

By the way, I had the experience of driving an E85 car for several weeks this this summer (E85 means that it can run on up to 85% alcohol/ethanol, and the rest is regular gasoline). The car was great, but with the lower energy density of ethanol there really was no cost advantage. E85 fuel is priced so that the cost is a wash. It is not at all clear that ethanol has an environmental advantage either.

Remember our old thread where I spoke at length about the efficiency advantages of clean diesel and diesel/electric hybrids?

Since then, the public understanding and sentiment has slowly changed to my position. The VW Jetta TDI is out and wildly popular in Californa, people pay 5k over sticker to get one. The Honda/Acura clean diesel is coming in 2009. The list goes on.

A hyper-miling couple got 60 MPG driving a stock Jetta TDI from NY to LA just last month, as has been widely reported in the mainstream media. The VW Golf diesel/hybrid experimental vehicle is getting 70MPG, and will go mainstream in 1-2 years.

Transportation is going to be all about clean diesel, diesel/electric hybrids, ultracapacitors and improved battery technology in the next 5 years. Hydrogen is finally being exposed for the fraud that it is. Ethanol will decline in popularity. Biodiesel still has some potential, but the future is unclear.

My mantra still is: Just get everyone to 50 mpg NOW and we will be in good shape to continue on to the next level of energy efficiency.

I agree. I can get consistent mileage above 50MPG in a gasoline Prius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7vsIZj8GSc

We know the bad points on corn ethanol mainly burning food supply isn't a good idea, but you can make it from grass. Also, when the main powerplant is an electric motor, and you are sipping liquid fuel, I almost don't care what the fuel is, it can even be domestically made gasoline for all I care.

I can get approaching 60 miles if I set the cruise at 65. The technology is quite amazing.

I say energy policy should:

1. Provide independence
2. Be cost effective
3. Be environmentally sound

In that order.

On Youtube people constantly throw the diesel argument at me. I don't understand the mentality of knocking a hybrid that is the first of its kind with the argument that a diesel is as good. Doesn't seem very progressive to me, but I do like the idea of clean diesel plug in hybrids. Like I said, I don't really care what the fuel is.

In the process you can get free fresh water from the waste heat that has to thrown away because of entropy.

I've often thought that they should build nuke plants near the overthrust belt and use waste heat to extract oil from oil shales/tar sands. Talk about a twofer! :)

Malcolm,

Prius' hybrid technology is great, and it is here today. I could not agree more. But for the future, we can do even better with diesel/electric hybrids. Plug-ins are overrated, but they have their niche.

We'll see :)

Humanity is a parasite to Mother Nature anyway.

BTW, I don't think you can find a quote of me ever saying I oppose diesel or nuclear power. I just want it to be clean and safe. I like the concept of mainly electric vehicles because it is a closed loop system. Just like I don't care whether fuel is diesel, biodiesel, or even gasoline in a gas sipper plug in hybrid, I don't have a strong opinion on nuclear verses solar.
I can tell you, the ramp up to giving solar credits to install them gets the power up and running much faster than waiting for a new plant to come on line. If we went solar there is already enough capacity, we would build new nuclear plants mainly to close down older ones.

Nonsense, my home is a net producer. There is no dispute that nuclear gets the biggest bang for the buck, but trying to downplay solar is silly.

Next you'll say hydro is just a toy as well. I guarantee if we had it all to do over again there would be no coal power stations, houses would all have solar panels, and the difference would be made up by modern nuclear and hydro plants.

Also Mike, Germany is a real case example of solar in action. Those who didn't put solar up pay a whopping 30% more than they did before for clean power. This is in contrast to this country which sees electric rates rise 30% every 5 years. Keep spreading the misinformation, the facts are very easy to research for anyone who cares to.

TOB,

Just remember that Russia had very bad reactor designs. They used a water cooled graphic moderated reactor. This is very bad because the reactor can be placed in a configuration where reactor power can have a positive feedback.

All US power reactors have negative reactor power coefficients. There are several of these; moderator temperature coefficient, and Doppler broadening (fuel temp coeff). These are the heavy hitters. Because of our designs, the reactors will go down in power when the temps increase. You can actually increase power simply by lowering the operating temperature of the coolant. When the temp increases, the power output goes down.

Another feature we have is that is impossible to put our reactors in a prompt critical situation (Chernobyl) It is more complicated than I want to get into, but simply put, our reactors can't blow up from a nuclear explosion. Those reactors are reserved for being only on the tips of missiles.

The Original Bankster:

I have been reading Pat’s blog for years. Not until recently I started to read lies posted. You have been misinforming this blog about the Middle East. My advice to you is to stick to the topic of Housing Bubble. The Link you posted about Israeli Army is misleading. Here is the Truth about this terrorist army:

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/07/israeli-children-sign-their-missiles_18.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/685792.stm

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine52.html

TOB,

*Ok definition time. Critical Nuclear Reactor means that the reactor can maintain a neutron population over time. The combination of promt neutrons and delayed neutrons (neutrons from the waste that are emitted about 12- 80 seconds after the fission event) keep the neutron population constant. A critical reactor is a good thing because it means the power output is stable. These delayed neutrons are emitted at lower energies*

I do know of many experimental reactor ideas that use a neutron source to keep a subcritical reactor design critical. The problem with some of the more exotic reactors is you must have higher neutron energies to make the fuel fission. This means that the reactor can't use what is called delayed neutrons to keep the reactor critical. Reactors are unstable if you use prompt neutrons alone (i.e. bombs). You can build a subcritical reactor out of these exotic fuels and put an independent neutron source in to make up for the lost neutrons over time. This may be what you are thinking of.

I heard Israel has a well-run society.

Moderated.

I am still wondering why we even discuss the Semitic People of SW Asia. I simply dont care about them.

They have been running around for thousands of years cutting eachothers heads off. I think we might be better off if we simply end the fighting once and for all by turning that shithole part of the world into a field of ash and glass. We could then decon the glass and drill through it.

Time for a new thread?

Perhaps something like "Buy-and-hold = Buy-and-get-hosed?" :)

*Sarcasm on*

The difference between Americans and the Semites is we get the job done and don't drag the fight on for centuries. Do you notice how the American Indians are now either drunk on fire water or taking your bets?

*Sarcasm off*

They may not like me, it is ok because I don't like them. I don't like anyone who takes my money so they can make trouble. Am I supposed to feel bad that the Germans killed millions of them and we are supposed to keep giving money to them to make it all better? This sounds just like what the blacks in America say when they want a payoff for slavery. Fuck them, I don't like them because they are sucking off our tit still. Make peace or fight, I don't care. Just don't expect me to finance that shit anymore.

I am certain they would make something work when they were forced to do so. I think they can take care of themselves. They kicked ass in the 1960s against several nations.

Why should you care what other people think? You should have faith in what you believe in.

God why did I get dragged in! Dont feed the trolls! I was so bad to feed the troll. Just dont kick me out like the Zoo did when I fed the animal some tasty snack :)

TOB I am not refering to you as the troll:)

Bap33,

Speaking of offers, I made my last counter offer for a piece of land near my workplace. It is an all cash offer for about 8 Acres of land. I just accepted the sellers last counter offer with their price and that they cover the closing costs.

Not a bad deal considering it is about what I wanted to spend in the beggining. I figure by buying it cash and breaking off a piece to build a home, I can protect most of it from other people. If I build it will be only on 1.5 acres of it and with 20% down for the construction loan :)

I figure by buying it cash

Now that is sweet music! I just heard on ABC news that Iraq does not have a mortgage meltdown problem, as they do not have mortages. They pay cash for houses. Their stock market is currently rising.

nutty,

That was a great blurb on nuke power. Would there be any problem with initial uranium supply if the US and world were to ratchet up the use of nuclear power?

Headset,

Uranium is short not because we don't have it, but because we don't produce enough. Uranium prices have sky rocketed in the last few years.

It was only a decade ago that we bought old war heads from Russia and adulterated it with depleted uranium to make reactor fuel. Back then prices were super low. Give it time and we will reprocess and make more fuel from ores. The fuel assemblies now at the bottom of the pools still contain lots of fuel. You cant burn them because they have too many poisons in them.

One more thing. Why not make thorium into fuel? We can transmute Throium into Uranium 233 which is a fuel. We make more fuel than we consume with this fuel cycle. It does have some nasty gammas associated with it, but technology can get us around it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle

thenuttyneutron, Malcolm,

On the AC/DC power issue for off-the-grid. Solar cells can charge a battery array using the cell's DC output. But as you say, any generator type device powered by wind/water would best be AC and thus would require a rectifier to charge the batteries. Unless, of course, someone invents a greatly improved dynamo.

I disagree with the idea that the off the grid home is best served by using an inverter to power AC appliances from the batteries. Efficiency is the key to make off-the-grid work, you don't generate enough power to have the luxury of wasteful devices. If you use DC appliances, you eliminate the waste of converting DC to AC for your house wiring, then from the AC back to DC by your appliance's power supply. Wouldn't you waste about 60% of the battery power just by channeling it through both an inverter and a rectifier before it does any useful work?

I know that for a true off-the-grid to work, we will need cheaper batteries and a supply of DC appliances. But we already have DC powered stereos, DVD players, TVs, computers, and refrigerators, thanks to the auto/RV industry. Increased demand for DC appliances from a surge in off-the-grid users will further increase thier availability. Current development of hybrids may bring the cheaper battery technology, and maybe even improved DC motors to allow for more efficient washers, well pumps etc.

And nutty, I believe the AC winning over DC had more to do with AC being far more efficient to travel over long distances. DC may have a bigger "bite", but when is the last time your heard of someone shocked by thier car? After all, people operate auto electronics quite often, and autos have a very robustly juiced 12 volt DC system. Hybrids even more so.