From: Anne Marie Tobias (atobias@interwoven.com)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2001 - 21:18:00 MDT
Oops... please ignore the silly person behind the curtain... I bumped
the send button so you can just ignore the prior email... double oops.
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Anne Marie Tobias wrote:
> >
> > Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > > Anne Marie Tobias wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think an ethanol economy is an awesome idea... it's renewable,
> > >
> > > Much more costly. Do the calculations on how much organics you
> > > need to grow at what input of energy and resources and at what
> > > costs including land costs, labor costs, cultivation costs
> > > (don't forget fertilizers and such), harvesting costs and
> > > processing costs for the equivalent amount of power. It is
> > > quite inferior to any of the major sources today. It might be
> > > reasonable for running fuel cells in vehicles, but not for major
> > > power generation.
> > >
> > > you
> >
> > Actually if you compare it so gasoline... in the same way the gas is
> > expensed in our culture... it's about twice as expensive as gasoline...
> > However, if you look at methanol production from several major
> > environmental reclaimations... it would be possible to make it pay
> > very handsomely and it's total cost to our civilization would be
> > less than 25% of the current cost of gasoline. The measure of cost
> > for a methanol society is predicated on numbers produced by
> > advocates of fossil fuels most of whom talk about Methanol that
> > is made from corn... though corn has a high sugar content, and is
> > a high yield crop for fuel production, it is a high maintenance crop
> > that produces major environmental impact.
>
> So, show a model that does work and the investors will flock to
> your door. It doesn't go far to claim that don't because of the
> evil corporations keeping your superior solution down.
I'm not saying the fuel guys are evil... I'm saying their greedy... they're
holding all the fossil fuel cards... why would they ever, ever let any
body draw a renewable fuel card... that would be the beginning of
the end of their game. How would you even dream of putting up the
hundreds of billions of dollars required to compete against the fuel
infrastructure that already exists... nobody is gonna beat a path to
your door... not if you have free energy... not if you have to tangle
with the existing oils, coal, and gas cartels... no way... no how.
Hell these guys kill their own like flies drilling for the stuff... and they
like them... what the heck do you think they're gonna do to some
upstart who wants to rock their boat...
> > To get a better grip on real cost, look at atmospheric carbon, cost
> > of managing and remediating old wells, damage to land and water
> > ecosystems and their related cleanup cost, cost of toxic chemical
> > handling and storage, enhanced fuel safety and notable reduction
> > on accidents and property loss, reduced fuel transportation costs,
> > reduced storage and refining costs, and reduce overall environmental
> > impact... methanol is a real savings.
> >
>
> Show the real numbers in terms of costs per unit of energy.
> That is the number that will effect costs across the board for
> goods and services and directly effect standard of living and
> health of the economy. You need these numbers to work, as well
> as having better environmental impact, to have a better energy
> source.
I totally agree... I don't know what the numbers are now, but I do know
the cost to the public for fossil fuel is at an all time high... and when I
ran a "COMPLETE" cost/benefit analysis on methanol in 1987, it beat
petroleum pruducts by near 2X. I'm guessing close to 4X now, but I
could be off by as much as 50%. Still methanol beats petroleum. it
just can't beat the pertroleum manufacturers. Oh yeah... I forgot... one
of the way plus sides on methanol, is that it won't be subject to more
than half of the taxes that gasoline is. Anything that leaves my pocket
heavier, and lightens Uncle Sam's can't b all bad.
> > > If we kept breeder reactors and got our collective head out of
> > > our nether regions we would find that handling nuclear wastes is
> > > a lot simpler than handling the wastes from coal and and
> > > hydrocarbons. There are also other less troublesome nuclear
> > > sources like Thorium which we have a tremendous abundance of.
> > >
> > > We have a bad rap on the waste handling because we killed
> > > breeders and never reached an agreement to deal with the wastes
> > > intelligently for mainly political BS reasons. That is not the
> > > fault of nuclear energy. It is the fault of our own
> > > irrationality and of those who manipulated us to turn away from
> > > the superior solution.
> >
> > Actually the bad rap came from companies that just did a shitty job
> > of managing nuclear waste especially plotonium. Read "The day we
>
> Companies could not alone determine how it was measured when
> there were no real effective disposal sites or methods
> implemented.
>
> > nearly lost Denver" for the low down on the insanely sloppy and
> > dangerous fashion in which the Rocky Flats plutonium treatment
> > facility was run, and the fire(s) that nearly resulted in a plotonium
> > criticality that would have been a major disaster.
> >
>
> I haven't the time to decipher this one right now. Sorry.
Sorry, then I should be a little clearer... This is published by the the
bulletin of Atomic Scientists...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plutonium is pyrophoric--that is, in some forms and under certain conditions
it has the nasty tendency to spontaneously ignite when exposed to air.
W orkers at the Rocky Flats weapons plant near Denver, where plutonium
was shaped into pits for nuclear weapons, were intimately aware of this
problem. According to former Bulletin editor Len Ackland, between 1966
and 1969 the plant suffered 31 plutonium fires. (Putting out plutonium fires
is also a risky business because water can cause plutonium to explode.) In
particular, small chips and tailings of plutonium are susceptible to
combustion--but quantities of more than 200 grams aren't. (See "The Day
They Almost Lost Denver" by Len Ackland in the July/August 1999 Bulletin.)
> > GE and serveral other companies just did a piss poor job, and
> > compare to the military, GE was a saint. The nuclear waste that
> > is produced by our aging nukes, has found it's way into the water
>
> Again because we played politics and didn't implement a score of
> known decent solutions and instead just ignored the problem as
> it became hopeless bogged in red tape. That was not the fault
> of nuclear power per se.
You're absolutely right... the problem has always been the silly things
that people do...
> > > Non-affiliation does not equal truth, affiliation does not equal
> > > deceit. Socially is not relevant to finding the best power
> > > generation solution. We have been running our energy policy on
> > > social/political grounds for far too long in this country. It
> > > is causing us to really eat it in California and many other
> > > parts of this supposedly rich country are not far behind in
> > > self-destructive, cripping energy madness.
> > >
> > > - samantha
> >
> > But it does mean I have one less reason not to trust them... and I'm so
> > tired of having people just baldface lie to me, because they're on some
> > body's payroll... That just bytes.
> >
>
> As opposed to lying to you because they have painted themself as
> some uninterested saint in order to push their own individual
> agenda or that of the organizations that adhere to?
I don't like false gurus any more than I like deceitful mouthpieces.
> Personally I think we should make it a hanging offense for a
> scientist or technologist to knowingly lie about something in
> their realm of expertise.
Isn't lying a freedom too? I know waht you mean though. The ones
I especially are the one's who lie before congress, or in a court room
and irrevocably impact the lives of others.
> > I'm still strongly of the mind that we could move the economy to
> > ethanol, and between harvesting seaweed, and organic recycled
> > waste, and ventures that treat large scale sewage facilities by the
> > same method that has been tried successfully in northern CA, we
> > should be able to produce more fuel than we need... then we ship
> > it to the third world and help them get started cleanly.
>
> Show me the numbers that prove this.
>
> - samantha
Cool... I think this would be a great project. It's been a little while,
but I'll roll out some numbers over the next week and I's like any
body with the time or interest to grill them good to make sure I
didn't forget anything.
Marie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:00 MST