Yeah, Bush is COMMITTED to Renewable Energy

D

dennis_t

CAGiversary!
A typical bonehead Bush move......and indicative of how little he really cares about weaning America of its oil dependence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022100156_pf.html


GOLDEN, Colo., Feb. 21 -- President Bush visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory here Tuesday to promote his plan to increase cleaner-burning, domestic sources of energy. The appearance came one day after the administration moved to defuse tensions over job cuts at the lab.

The 32 layoffs this month included eight researchers working on many of the alternative forms of energy Bush came here to champion. But on Monday, Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman announced that $5 million would be transferred from another government account to bring the workers back -- and avoid an untimely political embarrassment for Bush.

"The action we are taking today will allow the dedicated employees at NREL to continue their work that will bring us great innovation in renewable energy technologies," Bodman said in a statement released less than 24 hours before Bush toured the research lab and participated in a roundtable discussion on energy. The lab is the principal research center for the Energy Department.

The president opened his remarks by saying he wanted to clear up "mixed signals" about the administration's commitment to the lab and its research. "The issue, of course, is whether good intentions are met with actual dollars spent," he said. "I think we have cleared up the discrepancy."

Bush has made energy policy a priority for the year, proposing increased spending on several programs aimed at increasing the production and use of renewable sources of energy, such as hydrogen and ethanol. Democrats and environmentalists have criticized Bush for the layoffs at the lab and failing to mandate increases in the fuel-economy standards for cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicles. Some environmentalists said it will take considerably more than $5 million to bring all 32 workers back to work permanently.
 
On the topic of Alternative fuels, I think major research should be done on biodiesel.

We already have the technology to run diesel. Bioiesel can be harvested from Corn (which is a big crop in America). The emissions are significantly lower than any petrol fuel.

There exist two major problems. Low temperature geling and microbe colonies. However, with the proper research, it shouldn't be a problem to eliminate these problems. In fact, one workaround already exists for the low temperature problem in the form of tank heaters. I just think that biodiesel is a better solution to hydrogen cars. The greenhouse gasses released into the air during production of fuel cells is enormous, plus the cost of the fuel cells as well as the cost of the energy to compress the hydrogen into the fuel cells is quite extreme.

I, personally, believe that biodiesel is the easiest transition we could make, and one of the best of current technologies.
 
I agree with the idea on biodiesel. I am currently working on a research paper about biodiesel. With emissions, two of the more harmful emissions are lower ( CO2 and something else, I'll look it up later) but another type of harmful emissions is actually higher than current oil-based fuels.

Biodiesel can be made out of a lot of other oils besides corn oil. There is soybean oil, rapeseed oil, opium poppy oil, cottonseed oil, sunflower oil, etc. Used and unused cooking oils can be used. Just imagine how much oil gets thrown out each day at fast food restaurants and such.

Some problems with biodiesel include problems during cold weather which could be fixed with heaters, and there is also a small amount of performance loss with using biodiesel. However, I also read journals about better engine performance with the use of biodiesel so I am unsure which statement holds more truth. Also, biodiesel, as of right now, is rather expensive. It is ranging around the $2.00 to $2.50 mark. However, if biodiesel is mass produced like normal oil-based gasoline is today, I'm sure the price will drop a large amount due to biodiesel producers nolonger needing to have a high markup on the price.

I'll post more about biodiesel tomorrow once I get some of my other school work done if anybody is interested.
 
[quote name='Dkellar']I agree with the idea on biodiesel. I am currently working on a research paper about biodiesel. With emissions, two of the more harmful emissions are lower ( CO2 and something else, I'll look it up later) but another type of harmful emissions is actually higher than current oil-based fuels.

Biodiesel can be made out of a lot of other oils besides corn oil. There is soybean oil, rapeseed oil, opium poppy oil, cottonseed oil, sunflower oil, etc. Used and unused cooking oils can be used. Just imagine how much oil gets thrown out each day at fast food restaurants and such.[/QUOTE]
Biodiesel will still give off unburned hydrocarbons, CO and CO2, but in far smaller quantities than regular petrol. It removes the components of Acid Rain as well.

I also also mentioned corn, simply because corn is an enormous crop in America compared to the seed oils you mentioned.

While biodiesel is not a totally clean burning solution it seems that hydrogen cell production isn't either.
 
diesel mated with electric motor for automotive uses

and lets not count out solar power for home/industrial uses (to supplant existing powergrid so alleviate high electrical drainage (summer ACs, no more blackouts
 
[quote name='DuckM4n']diesel mated with electric motor for automotive uses

and lets not count out solar power for home/industrial uses (to supplant existing powergrid so alleviate high electrical drainage (summer ACs, no more blackouts[/QUOTE]
How would someone, like me, be able to utilize a solar panel to power an AC unit? Am I able to charge a battery?
 
Have you biodiesel fans thought about:
The oil used to produce and transport the grain (there have been reports that biodiesel uses more oil to produce than it replaces)
All the clean water spent irrigating the grain
Biodiesel may just be another farmer subsidy
 
[quote name='Zing']Have you biodiesel fans thought about:
All the clean water spent irrigating the grain[/QUOTE]

A large amount of useable oils that could be used in the production of biodiesel are widely regarded as waste. Biodiesel can be produced from animal fats as well so the various vegetable oils are not necessarily needed.
 
producing biodiesal from animal fats isn't practical. One is ethical reasons (and as long as there is a choice many people wouldn't use it), two is the land they'd take up and, three, all the extra food you'd have to grow (which could instead be made directly into fuel) to feed that animals.
 
[quote name='Zing']Have you biodiesel fans thought about:
The oil used to produce and transport the grain (there have been reports that biodiesel uses more oil to produce than it replaces)[/QUOTE]
I think you're mistaking it with Hydrogen Fuel which seemingly takes more energy to produce a cell than it gives off (considering you have to compress all of the hydrogen up to 10k PSI).

Anyways, if you have a report that gives data on reported train mileage per ton of corn, I'd be all ears. As for it being a farm subsidy, I don't see it as a subsidy, so much as a means for Farmers to earn a living without subsidies...unless they wanted to artificially raise vegetable oil prices.
 
[quote name='kakomu']I think you're mistaking it with Hydrogen Fuel which seemingly takes more energy to produce a cell than it gives off (considering you have to compress all of the hydrogen up to 10k PSI).

[/QUOTE]

It's not (just) the compression. You actually have to make the hydrogen, or release it from it's compound. It doesn't exist naturally on earth. It takes a lot of electricity to release hydrogen from water, much more than the energy you get back from burning the hydrogen back into water during combustion.


I love the inherrent bias in the article:
-- and avoid an untimely political embarrassment for Bush.
Click to expand...
Nothing like fair and balanced "reporting" from the Post. He couldn't be genuous in his concern for alternative fuels, becuase, well, he's a republican, and, well, his name is Bush. Freaking christ, you liberals are never happy about anything unless your own democratic leaders are in power giving you the same lip service.
 
[quote name='kakomu']How would someone, like me, be able to utilize a solar panel to power an AC unit? Am I able to charge a battery?[/quote]

actually yea, http://www.powerofthesun.ucsb.edu/ family in the dvd actually uses solar power on their roof and selling excess power back to the company


btw, hydrogen, diesel, electric, etc... cars are still manufactured with energy from fossil fuel plants.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I love the inherrent bias in the article:

Nothing like fair and balanced "reporting" from the Post. He couldn't be genuous in his concern for alternative fuels, becuase, well, he's a republican, and, well, his name is Bush. Freaking christ, you liberals are never happy about anything unless your own democratic leaders are in power giving you the same lip service.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with your point about bias in what should have been a neutral news article, I would say that given the relative priorities in last year's energy bill, Bush can rightly be derided as a hypocrite on this issue until and unless he calls for its repeal or severe modification. Quite frankly, I'm surprised to not have heard more during the "record ExxonMobil profits" story about the subsidies for energy companies in the bill last year, which seem more ridiculous than ever.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Nothing like fair and balanced "reporting" from the Post. He couldn't be genuous in his concern for alternative fuels, becuase, well, he's a republican, and, well, his name is Bush. Freaking christ, you liberals are never happy about anything unless your own democratic leaders are in power giving you the same lip service.[/QUOTE]

Ummm....if he was truly concerned about alternative fuels, why did those people get pink-slipped? Wouldn't he be pushing to hire even more people for that agency? And why did they only get re-hired when Bush needed a photo op there?

If you can't acknowledge the rank hypocrisy of any of this, you are rather far gone, bmulligan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top