Date: 28 Jan 2006 22:44:33 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: SaabUSA Biopower survey
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:24:18 GMT, Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> wrote: > in article 4422g6FfisU1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net > wrote on 28/01/2006 20:28: >> I'd prefer to have the US work on >> building up the biofuels industry and infrastructure, which will allow >> us to support our own farmers rather than supporting people in countries >> who are uneasy allies at best. > It's a sensible approach. You guys have vast vast vast areas of open space > that could well be as devoted to sugar cane or oil seed rape, as barley ... Yup. I'm being paid to not farm on much of my own land, for instance. Lots of surplus capacity. > Or windmills? What kind of lobby do you have going nationally? Are there > particular states that are more receptive to changing to alternative fuels? It's very spotty as to which states encourage what. There's a huge wind farm not far from here, but it's all private industry not state-owned of course. There may be subsidies, but again, to me that's a wise expenditure of our money. Investment in tech keeps people like me in work, and investment in energy independance is hardly wasted. > It is going to need a sea change, culturally, I would imagine. For example, > from a UK (perhaps European) perspective, we see 10 MPG V8s as a cultural > right in the US; a view of oil usage which leaves us aghast. Well, to be honest, I can count on one hand the number of Hummers or similar vehicles that I've seen on the road, in the last year. We're not talking a significant percentage here, either, and most people look at those folks the same way you seem to. > Well, following > the ethanol example, I see that piston-head culture being sustained through > any oil shortage. I love the growl of inefficient engines and the smell of > unburned petrol, but I do concede that we all need to change and for now, > the ethanol direction seems to be the change we need without losing what we > had. e10 is standard at the pumps in this area. >> The sooner the US starts using it's energy resources that it has, the >> sooner it can stop having to juggle unstable situations in order to >> attempt to secure them from elsewhere. > Well, I think that would be good for all of us; the UK especially who seem > duty bound to follow well, the Bushes, into whatever whichever country they > seem to see as the latest sure thing. I wonder how much of the Iran issue is > going to be a smokescreen for the next invasion of Venezuela? President > Chavez does seem to be unnecessarily "pushing the envelope" when it comes to > oil exports to the US. We'll see. It'd be nice if the people who "feel", rather than "think", wouldn't have so much influence here. We don't have new nuclear power plants because 20 years ago a 40 year old design had a well-publicised non-event, and because 20 years ago a Russian design that has never been used in the US blew up. The general public doesn't distinguish between a Chernobyl-type reactor and a modern design as would be built here, and we're all breathing dirtier air and paying for an expensive exercise because of it. If we had sufficient power from nuke plants, then maybe yes, hydrogen would make sense. But as long as we're just burning or converting a different hydrocarbon fuel to get it, it's a net loss. So yeah, I think it's play in the clutch pedal pivot hole. or whatever the thread was about.