Yes, the government (U.S. Navy) spent a lot of money back in the 50's and 60's to develop their exceptionally efficient highly enriched nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, the commercial nuclear industry does not use any of this advanced technology in their reactor systems. How do I know this? I served in the Navy's nuclear power program and worked for both Florida Power and Light and TVA at their nuclear facilities. Also, only 20 to 25 percent of our oil comes from the OPEC nations, most comes from Canada and Mexico. Also, the protection is not free, we pay for it with tax dollars. If we didn't, then the price would be higher since Big Oil would have to provide its own protection. However, Khosa's process is a very long way from providing the volume of energy required of this country' economy. Conservation, is a much faster way to achieve the goal of eliminating OPEC oil.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Dave Carlson <[log in to unmask]>
Re: Deceitful vs Transparent companies and their claims:
I asked for opinions on Vinod Khosla last week on this site, after reading a hostile and vicious editorial in the Wall Street Journal raking him. Today I was very surprised to see in the Wall Street Journal a long letter from Khosla and another from the CEO of Range LLC defending themselves, and doing a good job of it. Khosla pointed out that this new industry and technology has much promise and has met some goals. It has spent a miniscule amount of money compared to government nuclear reactor development, much of it was private (speculative). He also noted the 14 trillion dollars spent on US aircraft carrier groups over the last 30 years providing free protection for Big Oil and and their connections to the West. None of that would be expended if we had home-grown energy.
David Carlson (PS: n-butanol still makes me sick, and I am not allergic to anything ).
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:39 AM, maureen reschly <[log in to unmask]>
Great article! Thanks!
The only thing I might add is the necessity of looking into the effect of biomass growing and harvesting on water systems, and local ecology (if a cypress dome or older growth forest must be cleared to make room for the plantation this will decrease carbon sequestration, species diversity and water quality, if fertilizer or herbicide is used it could harm water and soil life, how much water must be drawn from local aquifers to grow and process the biomass). And whether genetic modification is used to create biomass stocks with possible unforseen ill effects on the environment and conventional or organic farm stocks. And finally how well have the effects of the process and its effluent been tested on humans (like Dr. Carlsons experience with n-butanol). Also it is always good to 'follow the money trail' to get an inkling of the motivation behind the article, who stands to gain, and does the company have a reputation of transparency or have they practiced deceitful advertizing and political manipulation (who's campaign did they donate to in the last election and what did they get in return)
Thank you for this article! Loved it!
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:26:36 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Evaluating renewable energy technologies
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Excellent piece from the R-Squared energy blog:
> To people who follow the energy industry closely, it’s a common occurrence
> to come across announcements from companies proclaiming to have developed
> the key to the ‘next big thing’ — for solving the world’s energy crisis.
> Maybe they say they can take any sort of waste biomass and turn it into
> fuel — ethanol, diesel, pyrolysis oil, mixed alcohols — at very low cost.
> Or they say they can produce renewable electricity at a price competitive
> with coal.
> The layperson reads the news release and is curious: “Is this real?”
731 NW 91st St.
Gainesville, FL 32607 USA