Entry for February 25, 2007

Well, my E85 series has taken a turn. I’m going to skip the middle section and go to the end… energy independence. To sum up the best parts of my ideas, to rely on ethanol from corn is a waste of the energy we want to save by using bio-fuels, as well as having the downside of driving up food costs. High food costs are acceptable to the enviro-terrorists who will propose the government tax users of the bio-fuels to subsidize food prices instead of using the smarter choices available. Sugar is a better method of making ethanol, but too many lobbies have directed the effort to corn. The enviro-terrorists are also looking at “renewable’ sources of energy such as solar, wind and geothermal, which are all acceptable as small scale means of reducing dependence on the energy grid for individual users but wildly inefficient methods of large scale generation of electricity to feed the grid.

E85 can very well help to reduce a small amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, but the policy of using corn instead of sugar will make sure that the extra energy needed will come from fossil fuels. All the wind farms and solar arrays will not remove fossil fuels from the corn to ethanol equation.

The main policy change needed to regain some sort of energy independence, which should be for national defense purposes as well as to reduce the national deficit. That policy change, which in the best interest of the United States, is to once again begin building nuclear power plants. The plants should be designed to provide 80% to 90% of the country’s power demand.
Nuclear power plants are most effective when operating at or above 100%. Nuclear power plants need to insert control rods to slow down the power generated, this does not stop the nuclear fuel from degrading, it just absorbs a portion of the radiation. Rather than waste the radiation being absorbed into control rods it can be used in the manufacture of hydrogen. This hydrogen can than be stored and used as an alternate fuel.

Houses and office buildings can help by putting solar panels up to help defray the cost of electricity, but it will never eliminate the need for large generation stations. Solar has its limitations such as positioning of the structure and alignment of the roof, as well as other environmental factors, such as trees or snow. Wind also has limitations, like conventional power plants the electricity cannot be stored, so a strong wind can maximize the peak output, but it cannot be saved for later, easting that excess generation. Wind farms are also loud and eyesores. The on land areas suitable for wind plants are also desirable for farms or grazing. The off shore areas tend to be located close to land to minimize costs so they generally threaten local fishing and marine animal breeding (as well as other issues). Wind and solar are not likely to ever become serious power solutions, but they will maintain a novelty niche.

One area of bio-fuels that takes a backseat to E85 is bio-diesel. Capable of being made from soy (another plant as virulent as corn and wheat) and the mpg is equivalent to petroleum diesel. The major advantage to bio-diesel over E85 is the engines. Standard gas engines cannot burn E85, so Detroit (or Japan) gets to sell us brand new cars. E85 burns hotter and yields less energy than gasoline which may lead to premature engine wear or failure. Diesel engines are a known commodity; reliable and serviceable with a long track history and have the added benefit of being able to use bio-diesel without any modifications.

Bio-diesel (from soy, not the hippie used fryer oil variety) costs more to manufacture than ethanol, but it is environmentally inert. E85, still contains gasoline (petroleum distillates and other additives) and still pollutes the environment, as well as being quite flammable. However, I do not propose making a switch to all bio-diesel engines, I believe both types will be used but the percentage of diesel engines will increase over the current proportion of gasoline/diesel engines.

To wrap this up, anyone serious about energy independence needs to recognize it cannot happen without nuclear power plants. Then we have to make the change to E85 and bio-diesel, whose plants can be fueled on electricity and hydrogen generated at nuclear power plants and supplemented with bio-mass furnaces that generate energy from the unused solids. These steps will not only provide the energy independence needed for national security and for the economy but also help the environment. One nuclear power plant can replace 8 to 10 fossil fuel fired plants and the emissions are the same as one coal plant with less air pollutants being put into the atmosphere.

The enviro-terrorists will never buy any energy plan that includes nuclear power plants. But without it there is no way to achieve energy independence or improve the environment, and of all available options it is the best option out there.

It remains an inconvenient truth that in order to save the environment and achieve energy independence, we must rely on nuclear power.

Where's MY tinfoil hat?

Apparently every other crackpot has their own conspiracy theory featuring collusion and backroom shenanigans. I’d be remiss if I didn’t offer mine. I began thinking about this because the majority of questions disingenuously asking if the US is going to war with Iran are from non-American askers.

It is an established fact that Iran was going to establish an oil bourse (the Iranian Oil Bourse – IOB) that traded in Euros and other currencies. An issue that would have little effect on the US as Iran sells very little oil or natural gas to the US. After years of announcing the impending first day of the end of the dollar as the world’s preeminent currency Iran has never made the change. Even if it did there would be a slight effect on the dollar as Iran’s customers, mostly Europe and Asia, be able to use their own currencies to buy Iranian oil and gas. No problem for Europe, but a major pain in the neck for some Asian countries, many of who have trade surpluses with the US and a corresponding surplus of dollars, who need to trade for a currency accepted by the IOB.

So who would benefit from this change?

Iran? Not really except the psychological blow dealt to the US.
The US? No the dollar would slide somewhat against world currencies, especially the Euro.

Europe? Oh yeah baby!

If the Euro grows stronger than the British pound the Brits might be tempted to give up their currency and sign onto the Euro. That act alone would trigger a huge rise on the Euro, but is unlikely as long as the pound is so strong. In other words, Iran switching to the Euro could have the effect of fixing the floundering economies of Europe without them having to do anything about it themselves.

There is a growing concern in England that wants to switch to the Euro, but the conservatives will not allow it. Truth be told the pound is the strongest currency on earth and it would be a foolish move for England to switch to the common currency. But the rest of Europe can’t wait for the current generation to pass on; it needs help now. Enter the Iranian Oil Bourse. But that is not going as planned because despite all his talk President Ahmadinejan does not rule Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei does.

Iran needs dollars to buy oil and gas from other OPEC countries. Iran’s antiquated system cannot produce all the petroleum they need for domestic use and still meet the import quotas. So switching to dollars is not practical yet.

But old Europe, facing disastrous unemployment coupled with job loss cannot wait for these things to “work themselves out.” They need Iran to accept Euros to give their floundering economy a boost. Don’t worry about the crippling inflation; it is all about beating the Americans.

So if you were Europe how would you do that? Have the UN hammer Iran with sanctions and try to force the two countries (Iran and the US) into war. It’s a win-win situation (for Europe). After the war the UN will open the IOB saying it is not in control and Europe will get a high flying economy thanks to the US military. Iran is already on the ropes economically thanks to the US and OPEC pressure on oil production, UN sanctions will push them over the precipice.

So what exactly is my conspiracy theory?

Europe is orchestrating a war between Iran and the US to bolster their currency and damage ours. Why? They have a pathological jealousy of the US, and everything American. They begin every sentence with “I don’t hate all Americans, but…” their jealousy is evident and so pathological they don’t care if people die just so they can be bigger and “better” than the United States. Which by the way is exactly what killed the Japanese economy, trying to beat the United States instead of just competing with the United States.

Obama for President

When asked about Obama President Bush said he was articulate and Joe Biden said he was clean. While both statements were the target of criticism they are both accurate (Obama is both clean and articulate.)

The problem about faulting these men for making statements that could be easily misinterpreted (or deliberately twisted) is that there is not much more to be said about him. His two years in the Senate have been spent toadying up to the DNC by voting along straight party lines. He did not contribute to any debates worth noting.

Going back to his time in the Illinois legislature is of little more help. Yes he voted along the State committee's ultra-leftist party line. He never wavered from supporting the liberal agenda.

Where I have problems with Obama is his support for late term abortions (D&Es), even to the point of having state funded abortions. While at the same time voting against caring for the babies that sometimes survive the D&E. So while he wants us (the taxpayers) to pay for abortions for irresponsible people who choose not to use contraceptives, he is content to letting the baby who survives the procedure starve to death (or succumb to hypothermia, whichever comes first.)

The Obamarama Spin squad is already in full gear saying the votes cannot be taken in that context. But they are what they are. He has been a long supporter of gay marriage, and yet he also believes a marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. His website has been changed to say he supports civil unions but the genie is out of the bottle, he is already on record saying "gay marriage."

Many will say abortion is too small an issue to judge a candidate. But I disagree. While it is not my only criteria for a candidate, I certainly look to it as an indicator of their character. The government should not be regulating abortions, it is a decision for the woman and her doctor. Any candidate who votes to support late term abortions is out of touch with the majority who are apalled that the killing of a viable baby is hidden behind the veils of "choice" and "woman's rights." Those candidates who say Roe v Wade needs to be overturned are also out of touch with the majority of voters who recognize the right for a woman to choose. (I know, they should "choose" to use contraception, and I heartily agree with personal responsibility, but that is not my point.) Obama is not just supporting a woman's rights by his past votes, by supporting government funding he is actually pro-abortion.

He is a big government Democrat who believes in entitlements (the crack cocaine of the masses), they are both equally addictive and once you start giving them away the people follow you forever. But those who are dependent on entitlements are not empowered by them, they are enslaved by them. He believes the government knows what is best and instead of a government that protects our liberties he wants a government that grants us specific rights and privileges. And of course a big government needs big taxes.
If people are going to elect a President based on charisma or cleanliness instead of on the issues how do they think anything can change? I for one am not ready to kneel at the altar of Obama.

Global Warming... the debate continues

Throughout the 90's and into this decade the government relied on "scientific studies" to help combat smog and emissions in the summer that said we needed to oxygenate the gasoline to help it burn more completely. The EPA followed the suggestions of those scientists who recommended adding methyl tertiary-butyl ether. The unintended consequences of that action were to cause a horrendous increase in cases of juvenile asthma. It also restricted the elderly or others with respiratory illnesses from outdoor activities. It poisoned countless water sources (aquifers and drinking wells) because the MTBE degraded plastic and rubber causing many subterranean leaks at gas stations and refineries/storage facilities. MTBE also caused fuel lines in cars to degrade and leak which may have led to deaths, and certainly led to property damage. And I would guess a smokey car fire is not good for the environment either.

It took several years after the hazards of MTBE were identified before the states began threatening the federal government with lawsuits if MTBE was not removed from the summer gasoline. The states could not simply discontinue using it since they would not receive federal highway funding unless they complied. The government finally caved in and gave up on MTBE.
The reason it is vital to identify the actual causes of the man made element of global warming so we can address the real cause and not the perceived causes. Scientists are still torn as to whether the man made component is carbon dioxide and the other green house gasses, VOCs, CFCs and gasses that effect the ozone, or particulates that settles on glaciers and on snow caps causing it to melt faster as the contaminated snow is slightly discolored causing it to absorb the sunlight instead of reflecting it like pure white snow. It could also be caused by drastic deforestation or heavy industrialization. It may even be a combination of several, or all of these factors.

I am not denying global warming... the earth has been naturally warming since the last ice age, with several dramatic colling and heating periods in between. I am not denying that there is a human element increasing the effect. But unless we identify what the problem is we will not know how to properly address the issues at hand.

I liken it to a mental disease. It is easy to say someone is crazy. But without diagnosing the precise causes of the disorder any random attempts at improving the situation may actually aggravate it. A precise dose of lithium can be therapeutic to a patient with bipolar disorder, but it can have a debilitating effect on someone with another disorder, such as ADHD.
So first the scientists have to say humans are not the sole cause of global warming and acknowledge it is a natural phenomenon. Then they have to identify the elements that are causing the human impact on global warming. But as long as they keep blaming humans in general, and the US specifically, as the cause of the global warming they will be met with more than just skepticism, it affects their entire credibility.