We are not having this ethanol discussion in the UK. Even though a gallon of petrol cost £6.00 or $12.00. The main focus in the UK seems to be solar water heating. I am looking into it myself. I think I might try DIY solar heating and I found this link in the UK
http://www.aztec-solar-water-heating.com/diy.htm Is there much focus on this type of technology in the US?

treehugger April 12th, 2007 12:00 pm

"I believe that ethanol is being pushed by our govt because the oil companies can create this new product as an alternative to fossil fuel, and continue to profit. The biggest problem with ethanol as I understand it is there's no way to produce enough to satisfy our energy needs. That's true for Hydrogen as well as wind, etc."

That is true of ethanol especially without impinging on food supplies because large amounts land are required to produce the plants that can then be used to produce the ethanol. The same isn't true of hydrogen which only requires a water source, think the entire coastline of the U.S. and tapping into the oceans, and electricity to crack it.

Lobo Gris

I believe that ethanol is being pushed by our govt because the oil companies can create this new product as an alternative to fossil fuel, and continue to profit. The biggest problem with ethanol as I understand it is there's no way to produce enough to satisfy our energy needs. That's true for Hydrogen as well as wind, etc.
I do think the best solution is to decentralize energy production and become as self-sufficient as possible. The lifestyle in the US can't continue. At some point only the wealthy will be able to buy fuel for private vehicles.
I didn't read every comment but did not see the point made that while railroads work well in Europe, Japan, etc, the US large. It takes many days to cross the country (except by plane). We're not talking about those kind of distances in places where they've got successful rail systems. I don't know what the solution is but I'm certainly concerned about what our children's world will be like. The middle class is disappearing; people in the US are spending two incomes to purchase the big houses and multiple SUVs that advertisers say they need. I think we need to become more practical and realistic and stop piling on the personal debt to keep up with nobody.

Boots,

Nick was being sarcastic repeat, s-a-r-c-a-s-t-i-c.

The other day the French, who we Americans know cannot do anything right,

That's when I stopped reading you article Nick. The french are doing a heck-of-a-job producing nuclear energy. Because nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases, France has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and because the price of oil is now around $60 a barrel, it has the lowest electric bills in Europe. In fact, France has so much cheap electricity, it exports it to its European neighbors. French nuclear plants supply power to parts of Germany, Italy and help light the city of London.

So why should I have read the rest of YOUR article? You can't do anything right. Right?

To ballerina April 11th, 2007 2:27 am
I am still in the experimental stage.
I need about 20 mega watt hours to provide most of my heating during the winter. I can get this with about 30 sq meters of thermal solar collectors providing I can store it. This link
http://www.dlsc.ca/borehole.htm
gives a fair amount of detail about storage, but 100 meters depth is out of the question for me. However, as my sub-soil is fairly soft I should be able to drill down about 10 meters fairly easily with simple equipment. (I am gathering materials for this purpose, but haven't made a start on it and I may have to think again.) A dozen boreholes should provide sufficient thermal storage. Interesting background …
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:oEDIaxKij44J:www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/technical-briefs/43-s...

As for the solar collector, this link
http://www.bigginhill.co.uk/solar.htm
was the initial trigger for me to actually start doing something. I doubt whether I'll use the system described as I have been testing out a simple concentrator. If you want a real project,
http://www.ida.net/users/tetonsl/solar/solarhom.htm
And other projects
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Projects.htm
Enjoy

yeh yeh. let us not totally dismiss wind, solar, wave power, etc. and, ethanol is a useful product on its' own, using landfill/garbage dumps and cattle 'exhaust'
Here in Vancouver, B.C., cooking oil is filtered and recycled for vehicle use.
I am saying that ethanol, doesn't sit at the top of the alternative energy pile, everywhere.

No matter how difficult or evil some people around you may seem, you only have the power to change yourself. As you take steps to raise your own awareness and seek out like-minded people who also desire to make a positive difference in everything from energy use to product and food consumption, you'll make an impact. Life will begin to change as people develop confidence to express what they believe and do what they say. Not everyone has "it all together" but when it comes right down to it, how many people do you know who try?

For myself, I am working on a $2000 scheme to store solar energy with a payback time of about a year.

michael hughes....i'd love to know more about this project.

End of the American empire. And the emperor has no clothes.

Stiv Whitman April 10th, 2007 7:37 pm

"The problem is that many alternatives are are actually NET ENERGY LOSERS, such as those you have specifically identified as 'solutions': ethanol and hydrogen."

I agree with you about ethanol, I disagree when it comes to hydrogen. Hydrogen can be produced by electrically cracking water into it's components of 2 parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. The electricity used to crack it can be produced from clean energy sources such as solar, hydropower, geothermal, wave energy, and wind power. No fossil fuels need be used to produce it.

As for being a net energy loser you miss the point. If net energy loss or gain were the only consideration then we should just stick with gasoline, diesel, and natural gas. They are still available, and are not net energy losers.

But the point is to reduce global warming, clean the air we breathe, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In all three of those areas hydrogen, plug in hybrid vehicles, and full electric vehicles (where it is practical to use them) are all winners.

Lobo Gris

The problem is that many alternatives are are actually NET ENERGY LOSERS, such as those you have specifically identified as 'solutions': ethanol and hydrogen.

Ethanol based on corn loses because of the enormous amount of petroleum that goes into fertilizing, growing, harvesting, and producing 'ethanonl.'

For example, ethanol is explained here decently: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

Once again, the US is out of step with the rest of the world, for the wrong reason.

People have reasons for doing what they do. whether you believe or do not believe in the climate change discussion, or it's relevance, you almost have to agree that changing the production of energy will spark, as i heard on bill maher the 'cycle of innovation'. when i left high school, we could play pong on a computer, nowadays, i play madden football with my kid on that computer.

Over time, energy innovation can cure what problems currently exist in the production.

I think the point that needs to be made, in america anyway, is the neccesity to develop a large enough voting block of like minded individuals to change our stone-age system into a more modern system. While there are differing viewpoints on what this system needs to be, it is abundantly, i wish to repeat that, ABUNDANTLY, clear that a large enough group of people exist, ecologically, economic, whatever, interests to advocate for ethanol production. economically, if ethanol production facilities stay in small company hands, it is a winner, eco-freaks seem to like it enough to say 'ok', farmers like the idea, with their crop demands increasing, i can probably think of a few more but i hope you get the point.

the point is;

Ethanol is the one, THE ONE, energy production means we can band together around. I guess, i don't know, but i guess there are better alternatives, but will farmers get behind that?

This post was entitled "The Ethanol Hoax" and the production of Ethanol is something that, on a large scale, should be prevented because it will use vast amounts of fossil fuel and compete with food production. Write, fax, call, email your Representatives and Senators asking them to ensure that your taxes are not used to subsidize it.

For myself, I am working on a $2000 scheme to store solar energy with a payback time of about a year.

Richard Posner - the way to evolve beyond such people is abundantly clear:

"Every dictator torments his people in the same way he was tormented as a child. The humiliations inflicted on these dictators in adult life had nothing like the same influence on their actions as the emotional experiences they went through in their early years. Those years are "formative" in the truest sense: in this period the brain records or "encodes" emotions without (usually) being able to recall them at will. As almost every dictator denies his sufferings (his former total helplessness in the face of brutality) there is no way that he can truly come to terms with them. Instead he will have a limitless craving for scapegoats on whom he can avenge himself for the fears and anxieties of childhood without having to re-experience those fears." - http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lang=en&nid=47&grp=11

If this country would get serious about rail - all types and speeds - then I'd hop back into my licensed profession, land surveying, as I love route work, but I don't want to build any more highways.

The original Pennsylvania RW line from Pittsburgh to Columbus runs about a mile from my house and came within a hairs breadth of going the way of so many abandoned RR RW's - complete dismemberment or "rails to trails." A consortium of investors saved it from that fate, began running "scenic tours" but now the line is active once again with mostly commercial freight. Now when I hear a train in the valley (often) I think that there might still be hope.

dlnelson7, That is incredible. I really wish there was something like that here in America, where my choice to be without a car for life means being virtually stranded as even nearby, large cities can't coordinate a train service between themselves. Whether humanity will exist in 150 years or not, it is clear who is definitely going to perish first and foremost.

As a point of information, Warren Buffet, the second richest man in America and the head of insurer Berkshire Hathaway, last week invested about $3 billion (that's billion with a "B") in three US railroads.

You're not putting ME in one that goes THAT fast....

So, you never get on an airplane?

High speed RR tracks (even the amrak-owned NE corridor tracks) are precision laid with continuously welded rails, and have no grade crossings, fences to keep large animals out, and warning sensors to detect any possible obstacles that could fall on the tracks.

Japan has been running it's bullet trains since the 1960's with a better safety record than flying...

The French record run was a publicity stunt to get another World record. Major components of the system (cantenary, motors, wheels, etc.) were totally shot for the test and will have to be scrapped and replaced before that train set can be used again. They don't intend to have regular service that fast. High speed rail only makes sense to the extent that it goes fast enough to make it a viable alternative to other modes of travel. So, if the price of oil gets high enough, the Podunk all-stops local becomes a viable alternative to walking/bicycling. The problem is that the U. S. doesn't have the capability to run that local, or many others because of the state of the industry in this country. There is no reserve rail capacity in the freight rail system, it's pretty well maxed out - I know I work in it. Things run fairly well as long as nothing goes wrong. Once something goes wrong, the dominoes start falling rapidly. We've rail-trailed a lot of alternative rail routes that there will not be the political will to convert back to railroads when the time comes, and people no longer have the disposible income for long-distance recreational bicycling, or recreation of most kinds. The imminent economic disasters we are headed for will put 95% of us in survival mode, and we just don't have the resources in place to help us deal.

The U.S. railroad industry has known for years that high speed rail is a non-starter in the U.S. for the simple reason that Wall Street will not finance high speed rail until the U.S. Government implements standards.

The lobbyists working for Boeing, the auto industry and others who profit from the status quo have been successful in preventing Congress from approving high speed rail standards. As long as big business keeps congress in their vest pocket nothing will change.

I live in Europe (Switzerland and France) and thanks to the public transportation system have not had to have a car since 1993. The French trains tend to be plagued with strikes, but I can decide to lunch in Paris from Geneva and still be home for dinner. In Switzerland there's a train to anywhere every hour. It works because governments have made a committment to public transport which is far better than a committment to conquering the world.

Our auto industry is failing because the government allowed it to escape the CAFE standards. Now this monstrosity.

But our government has other seminal issues on its agenda which currently fall in the column titled "failure to perform":

the current accounts crisis, the ag subsides, the loss of mgf jobs, green house gases, immigration, loss of energy security, imminent medicare failure, "theft" of social security trust funds, gross maldistribution of income (48.5% to top 10% of income earners in 2005, the most recent data available), epidemic obesity and coming reversal of decades of improving health statistics, failure to respond to Katrina in both the short and long term, the use of National Guards as if they are reserves, failure to uphold international treaties, precipitous loss of international prestige, a failing auto industry, failure of our fisheries, etc., etc.

Is our massive military spending when combined with the cost increases in energy and other commodities, our public indebtedness, and medicare/social security obligations going to push us into becoming the second, Russia being the first, post industrial version of a failed state--a place where the indices of development begin a retreat.

Russia is, sort of, buying her way back with her oil, a kind of liquid gold. We have, for all practical purposes, already spent ours. We do though have a single unused resource which could be tapped to halt and reverse this national decline before it becomes a rout and that is its people—people who are by and large employed in activities which are harmful to the environment and other human beings eg., in the case of fast foods you get a to twofor. So in addition to our government failing, the present form of our economic enterprise is compounding the problem.

With a paradigm change—a completely fresh look at what our real needs as a society eg food, housing, health care, and education vs SUVs, 5,000 sq ft homes, private jets, etc., and how we can best address them—we have the human and other resources to turn our situation around. There are really just two questions. Will we make incremental change at a sufficiently rapid pace to halt the decline on which we have already begun—I don't know any other way to interpret post Katrina New Orleans. (Our response, or lack of, to global warming and other issues does not suggest to me that the answer to that question is yes.) If not, we are faced with the second question, will we be willing or able to take on the necessary paradigm change to begin a recovery before chaos overwhelms us.

Of course, we assume that we will not let circumstances overtake us, just as we assume we can prevent becoming involved in a car accident—that is until some collection of circumstances appear out of no where and overwhelms us. That is what has happened with global warming—the gases were already up there before we even knew it was a big deal. It was just an accident—one estimate of the cost, $18,000,000,000,000.

jon

Connecting the dots: from human behaviors to ecosystem decline
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

I'm all for getting rid of a "...climate-warming, congested and inefficient Eisenhower-era transportation system," but I have to ask the counter-question to this - who, in their NOT insane mind, has the need to go 357 mph, for God's sake? It's one thing to be efficient, and ecologically "green," but it's entirely another to be insane! You're not putting ME in one that goes THAT fast!

If we are too dumb and too selfish to save ourselves and our children, then maybe we deserve to go the way of other species that failed to manage their own survival.

But, personally, I believe we're made of better stuff and will, once it's obvious enough, do the right things. I hope we don't overrun the stability of the Earth's stasis before that.

Uh, yep, there's another example of the myth of private sector efficiency. The French have a publicly-owned rail system that is extremely well run and innovative. In the U.S. we have a dog-in-the-manger privately-owned rail system that barely avoids being condemned. If the U.S. railsystem was a tenement building then Burlington Northern and the other private sector railway owners would be called "slum-lords" and rightly so.

Although Amtrak is publicly-owned, they are forced to defer traffic to freight trains and can't go fast on our slum-lord-owned tracks and can't keep a schedule to save their lives because they don't own the tracks.

Also, Karl Rove, in an effort to make it less obvious that the U.S. is now run by Fascists, decreed that the Amtrak trains would *NOT* be run on time.

It seems odd that more outrage and consternation is expressed about what is at best, fuzzy global warming predictions of doom, than about what goes on before our eyes. As we speak, those same cars and trucks and all sorts of oil guzzling machines are effectively killing and maiming the populations of entire countries as the monsters who control the supply of oil assure they don't lose it by sending others to war. Whoever actually fights for these idiots deserves all they get. But those who continue to line the pockets of those who sent them to war in the first place, i.e. all of us, are beyond the pale.

With that being said, who among the arm-chair environmentalists can justlfy saving a planet full of self serving scum?

True enough. It the few, the wealthy, the shortsighted against the rest of us. There are more of us and they cannot do anything without our cooperation. In fact, it's we who do the work that brings about our own demise, living to pay this moths bills we chip away at the future.

War profiteers have got nothing on these guys who intend to profit from the probable extinction of most of humanity. It's the good ol' American Way of Life: I got mine, dude, so screw you.