Well, there are several companies leading the way in solar, wind and tidal power generators. Plus, there are geothermal and hydro-electric means which are very easy to construct, that is of course unless the environmentalists have their way.

Out in West Texas you can find huge wind farms popping up all over. While the cost of the electricity they generate is a little more expensive, it's not that bad. It's friendly to the environment and the source of it's power is readily available. Also in West Texas there are solar farms. These are also environment friendly and in sunny areas generate plenty of power.

On a side note, it's very easy to collect hydrogen. Two electrodes in water produce hydrogen and oxygen. A solar or wind farm with a ready supply of water (ocean water will work) could supply a pretty much endless amount of hydrogen (and oxygen for other uses). While not cost effective now with current technology, I could see this easily becoming a very cheap source of energy and easily obtainable. Just my .02 cents.

 

1. There are plenty of companies lobby state legislatures, looking for a free hand out. The taxpayers and homeowners are the ones who will get stuck with the alternative energy bills.

2. They stopped the big western hydroelectric projects for many good reasons: they are ecologically devastating and a tremendous waste of taxpayer money. There will come a time when society will regret having built enoromous urban centers like Las Vegas in the western deserts. We are already leaving some rivers dry for the sake of agricultural and urban water demands.

1. Wind farms don't run on wind, they run on tax credits.

2. You'd have to cover the entire country in photovoltaic cells to make solar power a primary source of electricity.

1. Hydrogen diffuses through metal pipes and containment vessels, so commercially viable transportation and storage is a huge problem.

2. Electrolysis is an expensive and inefficient way of obtaining fuel, so a viable hydrogen economy doesn't look viable in the foreseable future.

 

Many great companies start out this way. However, there are plenty of companies that don't get hand outs. Taxpayers and homeowners will get stuck with plenty of things, regardless.

And many bad ones. BTW, they're not as devastating as you imply and I hardly think the Hoover dam was a waste of taxpayer money. Society will eventually regret many things, dams will be very low on that list.

Not a good comeback there. Believe it or not, some of the wind farms in West Texas produce enough electricity to be sold to bigger cities outside their area.

And you know this how? BTW, as time goes by, solar cell technology gets better and better. You should do some research. You would hardly have to cover the country in solar panels.

There are plenty of ways around that. It's not as big of a problem as you think.

Like I said, the technology can be improved, but it's as viable and even more viable than other sources of energy. There's only one source of power besides oil that we're able to make quickly and that's nuclear. But do we really want to make that mistake? OUR society may very well do that...

 

Intresting things coming out.

I had no idea transporting hydrogen was an issue. No idea that methanol (I think it was) takes more energy to produce than it gives. Also didn't know that oil can be refined from coal.

But all that is drawfed by comparason to the fact that I'm President Carter because I think we are too dependent on the whims of oil producing countries. I also had no idea Clinton owned CNN (where the 1st President Bush administration got alot of realtime news.. and support... during Dessert Storm).

I guess that makes Fox News Bush the 2nd's channel, huh?

Suppose that's why they call themselves "Fair & Balenced"?

 

Funny you bring that up. I just got done reading a research article showing that the media IS liberal biased. Fox leaned slightly to the right, but not as much as many people think (because so much news leans far to the left). The Washington Times was actually rated more conservative than Fox news.

 

YOu had to read a report to figure that out?

There was a study done 25 yrs ago that proved it. A guy basically asked for voting preferences among the media at the time and 70% or more voted democrat, about 15% independent and only 15% republican.

Similar studies have been done since then that back up the findings.

The media IS biased to the left. Is it a grand conspiracy? Not really. What it is, is a reflection of why people get into the industry.

Go to any journalism school in the nation and ask the studends why they chose it. To a man they will say "because I want to help change the world, or expose injustices, etc. etc. etc." More often than not, crusaders of this type are bleeding heart types...typically liberal. Its just a human nature thing. Conservatives are more likely to go out into the private sector and persue their own success, coming to public service or advocacy later in life. LIberals are more likely to make an entire lifetime out of it.

Journalism should be bringing us news and letting us draw conclusions as to the morality of the news. Instead, the journalists themselves draw the conclusions for us. It leads to biases in reporting, and what gets reported, what stories get run and how they are written. In some cases there are overt attempts at bias but in general it is just a systemic problem.

Anyone who cannot see the bias is too liberal to notice, or just fooling themselves. The difference in what gets reported and how it is reported is very clear if you survey the various cable news networks and print media long enough. Take for example the economic news. By every account of fact the economy is exploding, but depending on where you read the news they might downplay the positive news and do kind of a "yeah, but" story to blunt the positive aspects.

 

Um, no where did I state reading the report helped me "figure that out". I've know it to be the case for quite sometime. I merely mentioned I had just read a research article about it.

 

You know I was just giving you a hard time

 

That's why I put the there. I'm a big time conservative. Most liberals would probably call me a fanatic, but that's ok with me

 

One thing keeps repeating itself in this thread... the theme of "tax credits" or "subsidies" that are always viewed as a bad thing.
Many of you keep pointing out that the infrastructure isn't there to support ethanol or other fuel, or the cost to implement such a system is too great.
I lump all of these types of excuses into a bag of "Old Fart Procrastinations".

For those of you who think governmental funding of projects is some root of evil... have you guys ever really studied history? Ever hear of the TVA? The Hoover Project? Boy, what flops those governmentally funded projects were, eh? Not to mention the spending on research... any clue how many medicines and treatments have been created due to governmental grants and support? (My problem is when my tax dollars provide a solution to a disease, then some private company gets to rape me at $5/pill for the treatment, but that's another story.)

Anybody ever hear of NASA? Gee, a governmentally funded group that shoots things into space - big deal, whadda waste - couldn't credit them for much in our lives, could we? Cell phones, satellites, digital, computers, health monitoring technology, and tons of other common items that use technology developed for space programs. Oh yeah, and of course Tang.

With a little sarcasm and humor together, I'm trying to point out that governmental spending can often be a very viable solution to developing large infrastructures (like the TVA system) or creating technology that IS NECESSARY but not initially profitable or viable for commercial ventures.

Let's look at the grain subsidy for farmers in the midwest for example... why is our government paying farmers and farming companies NOT to plant and raise grain? Because of the price? World demand? Commodity trading? PHOEY!!!
There are hungry children all over the world. There are also numerous other things that can be done with the grain from agricultural development to new products like plastics, lubricants, and fillers. So why not let the farmers do what they do, and divert the government's subsidy money to universities to develop new uses for the grain, or divert it to small/minority businesses to build utility/infrastructure to promote the use of the product?

Maybe a better example is the argument we just had about using Methanol or Ethanol as fuels or additives... I don't disagree with the statements about cost to produce or supporting infrastructure to move/distribute the product. But bear in mind that the current price of grain is elevated due to the subsidies placed on growers of corn... the supply is regulated by subsidy to match demand at a given price. JUST SUPPOSE that an ultimate decision was made by government to go to 50% Ethanol in gasoline... the demand for corn would go up tremendously, so more would need to be grown. Now with no need for the governmental subsidy for NOT growing it - we're leaving more $ in the governmental budget. Why not redirect those monies into development of combustion technique, transportation and storage/dispensing methods, and improved manufacturing techniques to reduce manufacturing costs and efficiency.

You have to admit - whether pro or con - the cost of corn right now is set for consumption and commodity issues, so the price we pay for it now reflects that. That may NOT make it profitable for mass-processing into ethanol. BUT, if the subsidies were removed, and the market were flooded with supply, then what would be the case? Different story. We also may be able to use genetically enhanced grains for ethanol production, that we can't use for beef or human consumption, again making the cost better.

Overall point, don't lock your views about what is/is not feasible based on todays economics and conditions only. Also, please try to see some of the better possibilities of federally funded projects - from time to time we do luck-up and get a good one. I certainly don't want everything to be govt-funded - not at all - but there are some cases where it just fits. (Just don't buy toilet seats from Uncle Sam and you'll be just fine! )

 

Ethanol is a non factor as it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you can extract from a gallon of ethanol.

Perhaps if some advances in production can be made that will change, but for the moment that's the reality that Agricultural associations and legislators from ag states (who vote for Ethanol subsidies) don't want to face.

I wish it wasn't true, ethanol would be the perfect fix considering how strong America has traditionally been as an agricultural producer/exporter.

 

This I agree with 100%.

Another problem is that each reporter is trying to win over your heart so you - as a viewer or reader - remember who they are. They seek popularity (and subsequently more money) instead of persuit of fact alone.

I don't think the media is so bent on portraying a "liberal" side of everything so much as it is in selling ratings. I think if you look at the owners of the media, you will find most are held by either large conservative corporations or by wealthy individuals who are republicans. Now Flint on the other hand... well, would you read HIS magazine for the ARTICLES?!?!

 

Again, AGREED... given our current methods of manufacturing it.

That's my rally cry... let's find a better way to make it.
Or formulate a variation of it that is more compatible with modern fuel systems AND easier to make.
Or find another source for it besides ag crops alone.
Or... Or... Or...

Let's not just write it off completely because it's not right at this moment in time.
See my point?

 

...the sooner the better at this rate....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...na-autos_x.htm

 

You said THAT right.

Building materials...
Steel, Stainless, glass...
They are sucking the world into China at a huge rate aren't they?