Exit Strategy

[Clodfobble]

Strip mining prevents forest fires, you know.

Originally posted by russotto


So you support offshore oil drilling, strip-mining, Alaskan oil drilling, and nuclear power?

Or does this "weaning" involve shivering in the dark?

I'm not a fan of strip mining which is just further destruction of finite resources. We can look to the French for an example of nuclear power plants which are safe and operated by highly trained professionals, rather than Homer Simpsons. Off shore and Alaskan drilling are possible, again if carried out in a careful, well-trained manner.

There is also the possibility of oil shale, solar energy, geothermal energy and technologies yet undreamed of. Americans are still a clever and innovative people. Let a few of our bright young engineering grads loose in the labs at MIT and some of other major universities, along with a NSF grant or two.

We needn't shiver in the dark, but we certainly could improve our sytems of mass transit, and it might not be a bad idea to encourage folks to set their themostats to 65 and put on a sweator.

[Torrere]

Originally posted by marichiko
We needn't shiver in the dark, but we certainly could improve our sytems of mass transit, and it might not be a bad idea to encourage folks to set their themostats to 65 and put on a sweator.

a la Carter?

Weaning ourselves of our dependence upon (foriegn) oil is probably the best long-term solution (and it would also mean that we stop funding the region and it's wacky governments).

tw - if you say that the UN will not come back to Iraq, how are we going to rotate them into Iraq (while rotating ourselves out)? Furthermore, how will giving control to the UN help? The fighting might decline, but I don't think that the UN is a panacea and I think that the US will remain a strong force in Iraq even if we give control to the UN. And I do not see the connection between brigands hitting supply convoys and Dien Bien Phu.

Undertoad: We are fighting a scattered group of guerrilla fighters. Defeating guerillas who are fighting for a Cause, with the support of the civilians, is something that has only been done once in the past century (as far as I know of); and that was done by undermining public support for the guerrillas by addresssing the people's grievances and giving them an alternative method of getting what they wanted. Supposedly, standard military forces are able to defeat guerrillas at a cost of ten soldiers to a guerilla, but I haven't been able to find the source for that.

In a guerrilla war against standard military forces, the result is almost always a long-standing deadlock until the standard military withdraws. We will not be able to pacify the resistance with soldiers. I do not have confidence in our government's capability to undermine public Iraqi support for the guerrillas. To the contrary, I fear that we will continue to fuel the fires.

Originally posted by Undertoad
Because for the UN, it doesn't really matter whether they wind up a democracy, a theocracy (which the majority of Iraqis do not want) or under the control of 2 madman sons, as long as we get the diplomacy right.
Does it matter to you?

No. It does not.

What would an Iraqi democracy be like? Saddam Hussein has already eliminated almost everybody would could claim to be a secular Iraqi authority. If we want to establish an American-style representative democracy, we might have to rely on the Islamic clerics to be (or nominate) the representatives. An Iraqi democracy might not be far removed from a theocracy.

[edit: sm]

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by marichiko
We needn't shiver in the dark, but we certainly could improve our sytems of mass transit, and it might not be a bad idea to encourage folks to set their themostats to 65 and put on a sweator.

Starting on or about yesterday, that is no longer energy saving advice in the DC area.

[glatt]

Originally posted by marichiko
There is also the possibility of ... technologies yet undreamed of. Americans are still a clever and innovative people. Let a few of our bright young engineering grads loose in the labs at MIT and some of other major universities, along with a NSF grant or two.

No need to wait for tomorrow. The answers are here today.

For example, a company called "Changing World Technologies" has already figured out a process for turning industrial waste, agricultural waste, and municipal waste into light crude oil. It does it at 85% energy efficiency. They started with a small test plant in NY, which worked. So they built a $20 Million dollar plant next to a ConAgra poultry plant in Carthage MO. The plant works perfectly, and is producing light crude oil from poultry guts, feathers, etc. They process 200 tons of chicken guts a day there and turn it into oil. There are no toxic byproducts. Just water, and carbon, and oil. The carbon dosn't add to global warming, because it was already part of the biosphere. It wasn't pumped out of the ground.

Don't beleive me? Discover Magazine wrote a huge article about the process and the company back in May 2003. Discover claims that the potential is there to convert the entire US solid waste stream of 600 million tons into about 4 billion barrels of light crude annually.

The US used about 7 billion barrels of oil annually in 2000, so this technology would, when fully implemented, cover most of the US energy needs. Our dependence on foreign oil would be completely eliminated.

The big cost is implementing the technology. Retooling. Once the system is in place, it will free us.

But the answer is here today.

The following are links that directly back up my seemingly wild claims. Unfortunately, the Discover Magazine article is archived, and you need a membership to read the whole thing. The two links after the Discover article summarize that article.

Edit: Oops. Here are the links:

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ualize0603.asp

http://butchhoward.com/weblog/2003/index.html#39

The company's web page:

http://www.changingworldtech.com/techfr.htm

U.S. government sites that talk about how much trash we generate, and how much oil we use:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesa...91.shtml?print

[Undertoad]

skepticism

[glatt]

Originally posted by Undertoad
skepticism

OK. I'll take your "skepticism" and match it with this long, detailed, gushing article that came out a year later.

If we can get rid of our landfills, our mad cow disease, our dependence on Mideast oil, and make money at the same time, I'll be excited.

Since these two plants are up and running now, and showing results, I'm more inclined to trust the hype.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
skepticism

We need only return to the Super Collider as an example of how energy problems should be solved - and why they are not. Weaning off oil does not mean less oil. It means even more energy. It means smarter use of oil. It means more comfortable buildings. It means higher standards of living. It means using the one thing that the US dominates the world in - *innovation*. However what does a mental midget president advocate? More consumption and stifled innovation. When a business does not innovate, the mental midget president even rewards that business!

Aren't examples glaring enough as even to be known to those educated by Rush Limbaugh? USX (US Steel) and Bethlehem Steel. Both protected in violation of International law and international treaties (Does not matter to George Jr since the rest of the world and a treaty signed by Clinton is always wrong). American automobile companies who even stifled hybrid technology - only to be rewarded by George Jr with $millions of free government money.

Are you an electric supply company that stifles maintenance, electrically shocks its customers, and would even expose the nation to a far more serious Three Mile Island event? Don't worry. This administration will not punish you - especially if you contribute $450,000 to his legalized bribery fund. Are you an energy trading company that would even take power plants off line to create a CA energy crisis? Don't worry. You will not be prosecuted.

There is no shortage of energy. The US - a top producer of oil must now import more than 50% of its oil. The US - the top producer of natural gas - must now import natural gas. The US consumes 42% of the world's energy because Americans are encouraged by mental midget president to burn more - and don't innovate.

UT also forgets these basic facts when he proclaims agreement with this dangerous American president. We have a shortage of innovation in the energy industry. No wonder a wasted $80billion on a totally useless International Space Station (ISS) and yet could not find $8billion for basic research called the Super Collider (necessary to future energy innovation).

Amazing how extremist conservatives promote consumption and oppose innovation.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by tw
Amazing how extremist conservatives promote consumption and oppose innovation.

Don't beat up on just the conservatives. The liberals aren't real happy about their view of the sound being disrupted.

http://www.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/

Edit: misspelling correction

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by tw
No wonder a wasted $80billion on a totally useless International Space Station (ISS) and yet could not find $8billion for basic research called the Super Collider (necessary to future energy innovation).

Oh Lord. Not this old argument AGAIN.

[Elspode]

Carthage used to be known for marble...

[russotto]

Oil shale is fine, but it doesn't make sense until we've gotten all the cheap oil out -- using it now is just shooting ourself in the foot economically. Solar is expensive in terms of building the panels, both in cost and energy. Geothermal is extremely limited, and tapping it sends environmentalists into a frenzy. None of these technologies make sense to replace any significant portion of foreign oil use today or in the near future.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source; it takes at least as much energy to make at as is released by burning it.

Mass transit, setting the thermostat to 65, and other such suggestions come under the category of shivering in the dark.

And as for the oil from chicken waste -- that's oil of snake until proven otherwise, IMO.

[jaguar]

Solar cells at current efficiency levels (and they haven't gone anywhere fast) take more energy in their manufacture than they collect in their useful lifetime.

Wind farms are interesting but don't scale sadly. An associate of mine is in a very high position inside Shell and we've discussed what he calls their 'supposedly renewable energy' division. Supposedly because it's more part of a greenwashing campaign than a real research division. It does hoever haev over $1B funding. Shell is fairly big in hydrogen, while BP has significant investments in solar. It is worth noting one of two sources of hydrogen is....Oil.
The most telling sign about Shell's renewable energy division is it's location. While mainstream R&D, chemicals, exploration and extraction are based in the Hague, renewable is in London with PR and trading.

The ISS is a fucking waste of money from start to finish. Putting people in space at the moment full stop is a waste of money and any attempt to do so by anyone that has before at the present time is a PR stunt. There is shit all R&D being done on the ISS and shit all that couldn't be done cheaper by remote.

Originally posted by jaguar
Solar cells at current efficiency levels (and they haven't gone anywhere fast) take more energy in their manufacture than they collect in their useful lifetime.

Wind farms are interesting but don't scale sadly. An associate of mine is in a very high position inside Shell and we've discussed what he calls their 'supposedly renewable energy' division. Supposedly because it's more part of a greenwashing campaign than a real research division. It does hoever haev over $1B funding. Shell is fairly big in hydrogen, while BP has significant investments in solar. It is worth noting one of two sources of hydrogen is....Oil.
The most telling sign about Shell's renewable energy division is it's location. While mainstream R&D, chemicals, exploration and extraction are based in the Hague, renewable is in London with PR and trading.

My early training was as a scientist and I agree with Jag and everyone else who made comments about the difficulties of the widespread implementation of alternative energy sources given the current technology. Two points, however:

When are economists going to start factoring in the costs of incidents like 9/11 and the ongoing war in the Middle East in the economics of a petroleum based energy supply? If anyone knows of such a study, can you give me a link to it? I'd be fascinated to see the results of such a study if there is one.

Two: As a young science student, one of the first things we were taught to ask about any scientific study was who funded it. It is amazing how a scientific experiment can be designed to come up with the results that match the objectives of its sponsor. In the case Jag cited, Shell Oil. Does Shell OIL want alternative energy to look like a feasible option? Let's face it, at this point Shell can still rake in the big bucks with petroleum, so any comments their people might make regarding other energy sources is suspect.

One of my favorate courses in graduate school was one I fondly nick-named "How to tell lies by use of the scientific method." This required course (actually called "Biometry 503") was an introduction to various statistical methods and sampling techniques used by biological scientists. The professor was trying to point out to us how scrupulous we needed to be in constructing an experimental design, otherwise we would come up with false results. It amused me no end to sit in the last row of the lecture hall and come up with the right sampling technique and method of statistical analysis to prove that everything I had been taught so far was dead wrong.

I know damn well that the scientists at Shell Oil (and every place else) had to sit through the equivalent of that course, and that at least some of them, far from being alerted to the importance of good experimental design, seized the chance to learn how to lie with statistics in order to please the boss or the funding source.

[Undertoad]

If the chicken guts solution can produce crude oil at $10/barrel, including the cost of getting the guts to the processor, it will be successful no matter who writes magazine articles about it. If it can produce it at $50/barrel, it's of little use. All we have to do is wait, because economic incentives will force it to be used if it really does work well.