home

Thursday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu May 04, 2006 at 05:02:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I won't be by a computer most of the day, but I will try to check in. Here's your space to talk about whatever you find interesting today.

Our ads are down, our hosting bills are due, if anyone wants to kick in a few bucks, the links are here and I'd greatly appreciate it:

< Moussaoui Gets Life | Reform? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread | 37 comments (37 topical)
    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by BigTex on Thu May 04, 2006 at 12:23:08 AM EST
    Peaches - I sincerly hope you are correct in that the demand for gasoline is about to drop. The latest figures show that although demand is down for the year, it is up in the last month. This is something where Congress needs to act and force a rise in CAFE standards. They could force all new vehicles to be hybrids. That would be an average of 7% increase in fuel efficiency. More importantly as R and D changed over to hybrid technology because of the technology forcing legislation the increase in fuel efficiency. Toyota has already dropped the hybrid mark up to less than $3K per vehicle, and their goal is to drop it to below $1K per vehicle. With gas prices averging say $2.50/gallon over a year they are already cost efficient over the life of the vehicle. This is the best route to go to reduce fuel consumption, which will end up giving a cleaner environment.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Johnny on Thu May 04, 2006 at 12:45:02 AM EST
    Checks in the mail JM. Albert Pujols hit his 15th homerun of the year last night-but my redbirds lost anyways. I wonder how many eyes will be on Bonds when he surpasses Ruths total next week?

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by jen on Thu May 04, 2006 at 05:16:52 AM EST
    Hybrids are good. Different fuels are better. Like Brazil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by BigTex on Thu May 04, 2006 at 06:17:24 AM EST
    Ethanol is a farce. It's a pork pig of the grandest scale. You can't compaire Brazil's production of ethanol to the US. Brazil gets ethanol from sugar based products, here in the US we have to get it from corn based products. Someone earlier gave the math of the US going over to ethanol. Here it is again for everyone to see how unfeasable the idea is (although it is possible) Annual consumption of gasoline and diesel = 200 bililon gallons/year. 1 acre of corn = 300 gallons of ethanol per growing season. Total acreage needed to grow enough fuel for US consumption = 675 million. Total US acres of farmland = 938 million. Total % of US faemland needed to grow enough ethanol to replace fossil fuels = 71%. The negative effecs of switching over to ehtaonl in the US include, but are not limited to: If we were to go to ethanol then 1) we would have to import food. 2) We wouldn't have the food to send to starving nations. 3) Mass, and I mean on a scale unseen in the modern era, starvation would the result. 4) The price of all food in the US would go through the roof. 5) Meat products would become so expensive as to become a luxury. As far as even producing ethanol, Brazil's sugar based, US is cerial crop based. Sugar based converson is far more efficient. When temperatures drop below 70, sugarcane growth fails. That eliminates the breadbasket as sugarcane growing areas. Also, you need around 40-59 inches of rain a year (or liquid equivilent) to grow sugarcane, once again eliminating the breadbasket as an area to grow sugarcane unless there is going to be massive irrigation. In the short term this is possible, but water constraints of the area make this a prohibitive measure over the longrun. Then there is the price impact on consumers. Areas that have E85 see it sit in the storage tanks because it is more expensive than gasoline. On top of that more ethanol is needed than gasoline to go the same distance. The U.S. Department of Energy says a vehicle has to use 1.4 times as much E85 as gasoline to go the same distance. The total price increase for vehicles that use E85 is at least $1,500 a year in increased fuel costs.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by jen on Thu May 04, 2006 at 06:35:44 AM EST
    does the word "finite" mean anything to you? You do understand that when oil fields are still half full or 3/4 full it takes more energy to pump out a barrel of oil than is IN a barrel of oil. You do understand that We. Will. Run. Out.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by jen on Thu May 04, 2006 at 06:43:00 AM EST
    adding to my last post: http://energybulletin.net/primer.php Read AMERICAN THEOCRACY by Kevin Phillips

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 07:12:07 AM EST
    Tex. You seem well versed on the subject.
    2) We wouldn't have the food to send to starving nations.
    And that's the morality of it all, some say it's immoral to feed grain to beef cattle when there is so much hunger in the world. I'm not going to get involved in that arguement, I would feel a bit hypocritical after wolfing down all those marbled steaks during my time over there.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by John Mann on Thu May 04, 2006 at 07:19:36 AM EST
    I wonder how many eyes will be on Bonds when he surpasses Ruths total next week?
    If Maris's record has an asterisk next to it, 'Roid Man's should have several.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 07:47:15 AM EST
    File under useless information. Today in the rest of the world something unique passed. On Thursday 4th of May, at two minutes and three seconds after 1:00 in the morning, the time and date was 01:02:03 04/05/06. Please proceed with your lives.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peaches on Thu May 04, 2006 at 07:56:57 AM EST
    Peaches - I sincerly hope you are correct in that the demand for gasoline is about to drop.
    Big Tex, I think there is a mixup due to a typo. I should preview what I post, but I am lazy. I meant to say that the elasticity of Demand for SUV's and Trucks is inelastic in the short-run. This means that over the short-run, demand does not respond to price. The article in the NYTimes I linked to showed that inventories of SUV's and Large trucks were starting to rise and sales were beginning to fall. This means that we are entering the long-run, where the Demand for trucks and SUV's will start to respond to the high price of gasoline. So, the demand for gasoline might fall some due to the fall in sales in SUV's, but I doubt it. We will still have too many used SUV's on the market and demand in India and China is also rising for oil. But, the demand for the large vehicles will fall, or is beginnning to fall already.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peaches on Thu May 04, 2006 at 08:04:45 AM EST
    They could force all new vehicles to be hybrids. That would be an average of 7% increase in fuel efficiency.
    I think hybrids are promising, but they are not the panecea many make them out to be. The milage per gallon for these vehicles is extremely overstated, becasue of the way mpg's are figured in the industry. the mpg's for hybrids are much more variable, depending on the driving habits or conditions and also on the weather. There is also the problem of more batteries to dispose of after the life of the battery for each hybrid is over. With a small fleet of hybrids this might not be a problem, but if hyubrids were the only option, it would soon be a huge problem. We have the technology to make much more efficient cars. I drive a Toyota echo that consistently gets 40 mpg, no matter the weather. There was a geometro that consistently got over 50 mpg. GM produces a minivan for the chinese market (not available in the US) that gets close to 40 mpg. We would have to give up some of the hsp and zero to 60 out of the gate, but we could produce a fleet of cars running on gasioline that is much more efficient if mpg was the issue instead of size, speed and power. This could be as or more beneficial for our reliance on energy than a fleet consisting entirely of hybrids.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steven Sanderson on Thu May 04, 2006 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    Let's not forget that on this day in 1970 Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on anti-war protesters at Kent State University. 4 dead in Ohio.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 09:11:24 AM EST
    And then there's the illogic of ethanol production, i.e., take gasoline, put it in your tractor to plant, fertilize, cultivate and harvest a crop, then send that crop via truck/rail to a processing plant to be converted to ethanol, then distill the ethanol using a petroleum fuel (gas, bunker oil), then take the ethanol and put it in a car. Seems like we've added a few energy wasting steps here. Why not just put the gasoline in the car in the first place and cut out the middle man? Seriously, the production of ethanol requires a significant input of fossil fuels. Then there's hydrogen, which I think has the greatest potential. However, what isn't widely publicized is that the hydrogen supply currently available for fuel cell power generation comes from.....you guessed it, fossil fuels!!!, usually via a process called steam reforming. We really need to develop a method for the cost-effective conversion of water to hydrogen, perhaps using GASP nuclear power. The current perception of nuclear power is based on obsolete Russian technolgy..let's face it, would you buy a Russian car? Then why would you think that Russian nuclear reactors are the high point of nuclear technology? Here's a link to a modern, safer, better reactor system. linked text = IFR

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    Jim, Please accept my apology. I have been a constant, silent reader ( lots of us I'd bet ) for nearly two years. I feel that I "know" the regulars. You, however do not " know " me. The "blindside" was inappropriate and rude. I tend to lean left, we may have disagreements in the future,but this does not excuse my behavior. Taking my lumps when they are due.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 04, 2006 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    Deanyb - Zero problem. May we "educate" each other in friendship. et al - I have been out looking at new cars, and my +/- 3% accurate poll says that pick up sales are down, and SUV sales are wayyyy down. And car sales are down. Probably because many people don't want the discomfort of a subcompact/hybrid, but are afraid to purchase otherwise. That's been the pattern in the past. Tex - Do you ignore sugar beats? I'm not sure of the water requirements, but they grow'em around Denver.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peaches on Thu May 04, 2006 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    Jen said:
    Hybrids are good. Different fuels are better. Like Brazil.
    Big Tex responded:
    Ethanol is a farce. It's a pork pig of the grandest scale.
    And Jen said:
    does the word "finite" mean anything to you? You do understand that when oil fields are still half full or 3/4 full it takes more energy to pump out a barrel of oil than is IN a barrel of oil. You do understand that We. Will. Run. Out
    Of course, Jen you are right. But Big Tex's point about ethanol is still valid. The characterization of ethanol as a renewable fuel is a stretch. It cannot replace oil at the level of consumption we are currently at. Using our lands to grow fuel to support an industrial economy at the expense of food for subsistence, also might be a poor decision. The thing about oil, besides it being finite, is that it is a very unique resource and not very easily replaced by a new technology--such as ethanol. the amount of energy per liter or gram or whatever they measure this with, in oil is not approached by any other energy source. I would never underestimate the ability of humans to solve a problem. It is possible we may find an alternative to oil. But, we had also better plan for a scenario where this is not going to happen. We may find another energy source, but it is doubtful it will allow us the same comforts we get from oil. That said, ethanol being a pork pig may be true--but it is a pork pig created by industries and corporations. The Oil industries is one of the biggest benefactors of this pork project. Small farms ane rural communities see only a small benefit and these benefits don't stay in the communities, but are immediately shipped away for exports with the profits going to the corps. The only small benefits is a market for more corn (why do we need more corn?) and some labor created at the plants.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Thu May 04, 2006 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    Forgive me if someone has already posted this link, but Stephen Colbert's "speech" at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner made me proud to be an American. And actually made me proud of Dubya, for sitting there and having the fortitude to let it roll and not put a bullet in the back of Colbert's head like they would in, say, China. Click on the "video here" prompt at the top of the page, second line. Peace, Y'all.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Thu May 04, 2006 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    TL, And I just sent you a little something thru Amazon to help pay the bills -- hope it goes through, something's screwed on my PayPal account. Anyway, it's well deserved as always and I hope it helps. Come on, everybody, kick a little in for the good fight here at TalkLeft.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by BigTex on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    You do understand that We. Will. Run. Out.
    Jen, yes I understand that we will run out. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions on your post. Referencing Brazil model for alternative fuels is code-word for ethanol in environmental circles. I was reading the post along those lines. I'm all for switching to alternative fuels. Natural gas would be a good place to start. Not because it is a panacea, but because it is locally readily available, and a cleaner burn than gasoline. That would also buy us time to do the necessary research into other alternative fuels, such as hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles are already out on the streets. I've ridden them, they have good pickup and are a smooth ride. The biggest problems are the potential for explosion if the fuel tank isn't shielded properly, and the sheer size of the tank. Right now hydrogen technology isn't ready for mass production, but the needed research isn't too far off. Oscar - you are absloutly right that we will have a moral delima on our hands regarding beef. Protein can be found from sea meat, soy, and nuts as an alternative. The issue is on a grander scale than most here likely imagine though. The US gives 57% of the world's food portion of food aid. That number will rise in the near term as the EU insists that money to purchase food rather than food itsself be given out as aid. More importantly form a starvation stance the US gives over half, I do not have the exact number, of food portion of food aid in an emergency. No other country has the food on hand to give out. From a morality stand point it is partly a beef question, but also is partly a question of why risk a global food supply disruption when other alternatives are available.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by BigTex on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    Poker I'm not as well versed in dugar beats. Here is the hydro analysis. They could be grown in some of the breadbasket, and need 18-33 inches of precip a year. However, this is still prohibitivly more water intensive than the wheat that is grown in the more arid areas of the breadbasket (11-18 inches needed) and somewhat more water intensive than maize crops in the more moderate climate zones (16-30 inches needed.) The 30 inch per year rain line runs from central OK NNE to to the W tip of Lake Superior. West of this line sugarbeats are prone to failure in a drought. The 20 inch line runs from a little bit east of Amarillo north to the NE/SD border then NE close to the aarow head of MN. West of this line sugarbeats can't be planted, until Montana/Idaho mountain region on south along the range, because of precipitation concerns. The 20 inch line cuts out about 15% of Kansas, about 33% of Nebraska, about 70% of South Dakota and almost all of North Dakota as sugarbeat land. Sugarbeats are far more effective in producing ethanol than maize type of crops. This may make ethanol a viable option in small amounts as part of an overall solution, but even with sugarbeath we cannot produce nearly enough ethanol to replace oil. Peaches - you are dead on with the energy measurement, something most people forget about. That is a huge consideration with ethanol. The math from above ignored the DoE calculation of needing a 1.4:1 ratio of ethanol to gasoline to make the same energy. The DoE claculations seem high when looking at actual mpg compairsons of E85 to standard engines for 2006. The compairsons show something along the lines of a 1.25:1 ratio. Redoing the math with the energy measure weighting (of 1.25) is as follows. Annual consumption of E85 = 250 bililon gallons/year. 1 acre of corn = 300 gallons of ethanol per growing season. Total acreage needed to grow enough fuel for US consumption = 833 million. Total US acres of farmland = 938 million. Total % of US faemland needed to grow enough ethanol to replace fossil fuels = 89%. At DoE calculated levels math is as follows. Annual consumption of gasoline and diesel = 280 bililon gallons/year. 1 acre of corn = 300 gallons of ethanol per growing season. Total acreage needed to grow enough fuel for US consumption = 933 million. Total US acres of farmland = 938 million. Total % of US faemland needed to grow enough ethanol to replace fossil fuels = 99%.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    Tex & Poker, Here's the 100% herbally blended, American heartland, musically legendary website for biofuel info. On the road again is right. FarmAid of the futursitic type. Peace, my Texas roses.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peaches on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    Tex, Sugar beats are grown in ND. They are probably the number one cash crop next to wheat. They are also grown extensively in western Minnesota. I am not sure about SOuth Dakota. I don't know about water requirements, but the red river valley that runs along the western edge of Minnesota and the Eastern edge of North Dakota is prime Sugar Beat Country.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    Sorry Oscar, that was last month. You've got your 04 & 05 mixed.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    I would like to chime in with one point: the Earth will never "run out" of oil. There will come a time in the future where the extraction of oil is no longer economically reasonable. I understand that when people talk about "running out of oil" they really mean this, whether they know it or not, but the point is worth raising. And does the idea of using food crops as a fuel source strike anyone else as foolish? The general idea that ethanol would be an adequate replacement to petroleum only proves the power of lobbyists to influence both politicians and the public. Further, the fact that Brazil is able to use a food crop as a gasoline replacement shouldn't suggest the US could one day do the same. Remember: Brazil's demand for gasoline is 3% that of the United States. Rather than invest in ethanol or switch grass or sugar beets, shouldn't invest in hydrogen vehicles? The future seems much brighter there.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peaches on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    Perhaps in the UK the day preceeds the month. Thus, May 5th is written as the 5th of May and the 4th of May would be written: 04/05/06. Thus, this morning at two minutes and three seconds after 1 in the morning...

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    Or am I simply pointing out the obvious. If so, che, I apologize.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    Tex. I think the initial point I wanted to make was the morality of turning so much foodstuff into fuel. Poor writing on my my part. The other issue I don't want to go into, it's realism in an imperfect world. Che. I think you are the only country that quotes the month prior to the day when talking of the date. If not the only one, then one of a few. In the grand scheme of things, quite trivial, as was my post.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Johnny on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:21:24 PM EST
    Re. using foodstuffs to drive HumVees around vs. feeding the "starving millions". Increased food productions leads to a still greater population increase, which leads to yet another increase in food production. Interesting phenomenom observed in every single population of critters all over the world. Except people believe that law does not apply to them. Thats why they refuse to accept that it is the humanitarian aid itself that has brought about the massive famine present in Africa.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by jen on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:21:41 PM EST
    living closer, living smaller, walking and bycicling more, public transportation that is a *hell* of a lot better than what we have now. These are things that will need to happen. But other things can be done and done before that. For one thing, downsizing our cars. 5$ a gallon is a lot less horrible in a small 40 - 50 mpg car (or my lil 90 miles per tank scooter) This attitude we have that we MUST have huge powerful fast fast cars has got to start changing.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by jen on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    Sorry Tex, I wasn't even really thinking ethanol as such, just brazil as an example of a country that is switching. Natural gas was one that did come to mind. living closer, living smaller, walking and bycicling more, public transportation that is a *hell* of a lot better than what we have now. These are things that will need to happen. But other things can be done and done before that. For one thing, downsizing our cars. 5$ a gallon is a lot less horrible in a small 40 - 50 mpg car (or my lil 90 miles per tank scooter) This attitude we have that we MUST have huge powerful fast fast cars has got to start changing. (although.. my uncle has a big honkin suv, he runs it on used restaurant vegetable oil....)

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree in the Kennedy family, does it.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    Oscar, Peaches Noted. Please excuse my nationalistic bias. I thought I was pretty smart for a moment there. Just for a moment.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by BigTex on Thu May 04, 2006 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    Sugar beats are grown in ND. They are probably the number one cash crop next to wheat. They are also grown extensively in western Minnesota.
    Sorry Peaches, I had slipped into my meteorology background, forgetting about irrigation as a water source other than the natural water budget. You are absloutly correct. Jen I agree with all that you say about needing to switch over to smaller vehicles, public transportation, etc. Also sorry for not taking your statements at face value.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 04, 2006 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    Johnny writes:
    Increased food productions leads to a still greater population increase,
    Not true in North America, Europe and parts of Asia.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Johnny on Thu May 04, 2006 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    Jim, were the nations creating the surplus not exporting their surplus to the nations experiencing rampant population growth, you would be correct. As it is, you are incorrect. Increased food production leads to increased population.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 05, 2006 at 08:26:33 PM EST
    Jen, links must be in html format or they skew the site. instructions are in the comment box. Thanks.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri May 05, 2006 at 09:16:12 PM EST
    Shuster:
    ... there was evidence mentioned today involving documents and memos of, from Karl Rove to another administration official  about Valerie Wilson. If they're talking about documents and memos as opposed to the Stephen Hadley email that Karl Rove wrote, in other words, if there are other emails or documents that would suggest that perhaps prosecutors have an even stronger case to suggest that Karl Rove didn't have memory problems, he was willfully trying to avoid remembering certain things to the grand jury, but we'll see pretty soon I think
    Thursday Open Thread | 37 comments (37 topical)