There are No "Solutions" - Only "Trade-offs"

Today's Electric Car Batteries Will Be Tomorrow's E-Waste Crisis, Scientists Warn

Wind turbines kill endangered bird species, electric cars require toxic batteries and run off of coal-fired power plants, The infrastructure necessary to provide charging stations for plug-in EV’s will cost billions and require even more power generation, but no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard.

Engineering isn’t about “solutions,” it’s about picking the best options and minimizing the costs of the trade-offs.

Politics is only about getting elected and re-elected. Politicians can promise the moon without any concern about the costs - monetary, environmental, social. And they depend on a public ignorant to the realities. Shouts of “Consensus!” are used to ensure that no one opposed gets listened to.

That’s not how science - or engineering - work. Reality is what remains even if you don’t believe in it.

Bill Whittle

In keeping with my recent practice of "no new original content," here's Bill Whittle's latest Afterburner - Gulliver, Unbound:

)

Merry Christmas!

Michael Ramirez on the Promise of "Green Jobs"

Repeat after me:

Amonix ($5.9M)
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3M)
Nordic Windpower ($16M)
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20M)
Evergreen Solar ($25M)
Raser Technologies ($33m)
Beacon Power ($43M)
Range Fuels ($80M)
Ener1 ($118.5M)
A123 Systems ($279M)
Abound Solar ($400M)

Not to mention the $535 million lost with Solyndra's bankruptcy.  And, as I said before, "This list is not complete."

Paradigm Shift?

If real, this could be as significant as Watt's perfection of the steam engine: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All

Read it and all the links, but here's the pullquote:

While a few commentators have raised criticisms concerning how the measurements were made and sources of error others have argued that the energy produced is so significant even knocking off an order of magnitude on either axis still portrays a process with insanely valuable output.

Faster, please.

Fracking Hollywood

A while back, I chipped in some cash so that the documentary FrackNation could be finished.  Well, it's finished:



Yup, it's going to be on cable, on AXS TV.  I'll DVR it.  Should be interesting when compared to Matt Damon's oil-money-funded feature drama Promised Land.

UPDATE: And they've upped the ante with respect to Promised Land:

Matt Damon called 'liar' by pro-fracking filmmaker

Accompanied by this photo:

Movieline.com attended on a panel discussion about "Promised Land" featuring Damon and reported that Damon said the movie wasn't political.

"I don't want to call Matt Damon a liar but he's a liar, really," McAleer said. "It's a deeply political movie and it's deeply disingenuous for Matt Damon to say otherwise. … Matt Damon isn't telling the truth."

Quote of the Day - Hayward's First Law

Hayward's First Law of Environmental Energy Politics: there is no source of energy, no matter how clean, that environmentalists won't oppose if it becomes cheap and abundant. -- Steven Hayward, PowerLine: Algae Energy: Get Ready for the Turnabout

There were a couple of other really excellent pullquotes, like this one:

...unlike ethanol, wind, and many other energy boondoggles, there is a lot of private capital going into algae energy research, and while some research efforts clamor for government grants, etc, most of this is being done without government subsidy for the simplest of reasons: if someone can make algae fuels competitive with oil, they’ll make the next great energy fortune.

(My emphasis.)

It's a short piece. RTWT.

Global Cooling Warming Climate Change

So, Instapundit links to a study that says, contrary to the received wisdom of the Warmists, the more people know about science the (slightly) less likely they are to buy into the idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

I wonder why?

For example, we're told - on the one hand - that the last decade is "undoubtedly the warmest 10-year period since the beginning of weather records in 1850." Then we're told - with equal sincerity - that every year since 1998 has been cooler than that "peak" year.

So, which is it?

The promoters of AGW say "both!" The earth hasn't heated up since 1998, despite massive CO₂ emissions? Well, there's (always) a simple explanation! Asian pollution!

A new study demonstrates why global surface temperatures defied a decades-long trend and didn’t continue to rise between 1998 and 2008: Pollution-spewing, coal-burning power plants in Asia, while emitting warming greenhouse gases, simultaneously sent cooling sulfur particles into the atmosphere.

During that decade — sometimes cited as evidence to deny global warming — these Asian emissions mostly balanced one another and dampened the effects of natural cooling cycles associated with the sun and ocean temperatures.

But never fear, the thermostat's ready to be cranked up again!

I recommend you spend nine minutes and watch this:






It's worth your time.

UPDATE: From Watts Up With That comes the Quote of the Week from Minister of Parliament Graham Stringer from the investigation into ClimateGate:

"When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn’t," Stringer told us. "That just isn't science. It's literature. If somebody can't reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?"

It's getting more funding and ginning up enthusiasm for more government power.

Kudos to Obama

Kudos to Obama

And I mean that seriously.

Fed Loan Guarantees May Boost Nuclear Power Return

$8B loan guarantees for Ga. plants may spur nuclear comeback 30 years after Three Mile Island

More than $8 billion in new federal loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia could be the first step toward a nuclear renaissance in the United States, three decades after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident halted all new reactor orders.

With the nuclear industry poised to begin construction of at least a half dozen plants over the next decade, President Barack Obama announced the first loan guarantees Tuesday, casting them as both economically essential and politically attractive. He called nuclear power a key part of comprehensive energy legislation that assigns a cost to the carbon pollution of fossil fuels, giving utility companies more incentive to turn to cleaner nuclear fuel.

"This is only the beginning," Obama said in designating the new federal financial backing for a pair of reactors in Burke County, Ga., to be built by Atlanta-based Southern Co. Obama's budget would triple — to $54.5 billion — loan guarantees available for new nuclear construction.

Of course, he killed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage program, but . . .

I wanted to wait a couple of days and see what the liberals had to say about Obama's announcement, and I've been surprised. Eminent nuclear physicist Michael Douglas (star of 1979's The China Syndrome) now supports nuclear power. "(P)ioneering environmentalist Stewart Brand, the founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog" - for years an opponent of nuclear power - is now on board.

Hey, the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming does have an upside!

But I still want my backyard nuke.

Some Government Bureaucrat . . .

Some Government Bureaucrat . . .

. . . will come along and quash his dream:

Teen’s DIY Energy Hacking Gives African Village New Hope

Some people see lemons and make lemonade. William Kamkwamba saw wind and made a windmill.

This might not seem like a mighty feat. But Kamkwamba, who grew up in Masitala, a tiny rural farming village off the grid in Malawi, was 14 years old in 2001 when he spotted a photo of a windmill in a U.S. textbook one day. He decided to make one, hacking together a contraption from strips of PVC pipe, rusty car and bicycle parts and blue gum trees.

Though he ultimately had big designs for his creation, all he really wanted to do initially was power a small bulb in his bedroom so he could stay up and read past sunset.

But one windmill has turned into three, which now generate enough electricity to light several bulbs in his family’s house, power radios and a TV, charge his neighbors’ cellphones and pump water for the village’s fields and household use.

Now 22, Kamkwamba wants to build windmills across Malawi and perhaps beyond. Next summer he also plans to construct a drilling machine to bore 40-meter holes for water and pumps. His aim is to help Africans become self-sufficient and resolve their problems without reliance on foreign aid.

(My emphasis.) There's his first mistake.

RTWT, though. Kid's got a future!

(h/t: Instapundit)

Oil: The Wonder Mineral

You can do anything with it, except drill for it or burn it.

I don't recall hearing about this in the media when it was released. I wonder why that is?

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—

Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.

The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000.

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.

Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.

At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.

The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.

(Bold emphasis is mine.)

From the FAQ page:

Why isn't this information concerning the Bakken Formation on front page news?

In April 2008, when the USGS released the assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the Bakken Formation, there was a press release which was distributed to the media. The individual media organizations make the decision about what stories to publish. When the USGS assessment was released, news articles were done in several news avenues including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and Oil and Gas Journal.

In other words, "It doesn't fit the agenda."

Why aren't we drilling in the Bakken Formation?

Oil has been produced from the Bakken Formation since the 1950's and, as of December 2008, cumulative oil production from the Bakken Formation totaled about 149 million barrels (up from 135 million barrels in September 2008).

That wasn't the question. Why isn't the area infested with drill rigs? Answer: Congress.

Does the Bakken Formation contain more oil than Saudi Arabia?

There is no certain method to determine the exact volume of oil that is contained in the Bakken Formation or any formation. The Bakken Formation oil resource is much different than the oil resources of Saudi Arabia. The Bakken oil resource is what we refer to as a "continuous" or unconventional resource, whereas the oil resources being produced in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries are conventional resources. Continuous or unconventional resources require more technical drilling and recovery methods that are much more costly and the oil recoveries per well are commonly much lower than in a conventional resource accumulation. However, the estimate of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS.

A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences, such as those in conventional accumulations. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

"Yes."

What are some of the problems with drilling in the Bakken Formation?

Oil is produced from the Bakken Formation shale in a manner that is a refinement of traditional oil field practice. Traditional oil fields produce from rocks with relatively high porosity and permeability, so oil flows out fairly easily. In contrast, the Bakken Formation is a relatively tight formation consisting of low porosity and permeability rock, from which oil flows only with difficulty. To overcome this problem, wells are drilled horizontally, at depth, into the Bakken and then water and other materials (like sand) are pumped downhole at high pressure (called hydrofracturing) to create open fractures, creating artificial permeability in these tight rocks. The oil can then flow more easily out of these fractures and tight pores. Traditional oil fields regularly employ hydrofracturing and non-vertical wells have also long been drilled. The technique has been fine-tuned for use in the Bakken and other similar tight continuous reservoirs.

"It costs more per barrel."

Will the oil in the Bakken Formation free us from depending on foreign oil?

It is hard to determine if the Bakken Formation oil could offset other sources of oil A number of logistical and economic factors affect current and future production, and oil deposits are typically produced for many decades. For these reasons, the USGS does not make forecasts about the future potential of a resource to resolve national energy needs.

"It could, if we had the national will to exploit it. See the question above on 'why isn't this front page news?'"

"Peak Oil" my aching ass. More expensive oil, yes. But there's a LOT we haven't tapped yet. As the easier stuff taps out and the price goes up, other energy technologies will become more attractive, but the "more difficult to extract" oil will become economically feasible.

If we can keep the modern Luddites from putting us all back in the middle ages.

Has Frank Sanns "crossed a line somewhere"?

Has Frank Sanns "crossed a line somewhere"?

A couple of days ago I wrote a post about retired chemist Victor Deeb, whose private property was seized because he was doing chemistry experiments in his home.

Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for Marlboro (MA), stated, "I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation."

I wonder what Ms. Wilderman would think of Frank Sanns, and whether there's a similar .gov position in Pittsburg with an "enforcement officer" who would object - with similar results - to Mr. Sanns' non-"customary home occupation."

Mr. Sanns has an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back^*, er, a nuclear fusion reactor in his garage.

And he's not alone.

I LOVE America! The Pursuit of Happiness!

Via Classical Values.

(* - For those too young to get the reference.)

More Unintended Consequences

More Unintended Consequences

Or were they really unintended?

Do you own a turbo-diesel pickup truck? Buy it on the understanding that you could get good performance and fairly decent mileage, and your fuel would cost less than gasoline? Do you own a diesel car for the same reasons?

Are you now pissed off that diesel costs more, significantly more, than gasoline? Have you been blaming it on Congress for passing "low sulfur" restrictions? Do you believe that it costs more at the pump because it costs more to refine?

You'd be wrong.

One reason why diesel fuel today is higher priced than gasoline is because of the unintended consequences of the 2007 EPA mandated ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) fuel - and not necessarily because it costs more to produce...

Everything changed in October of 2006, when the new U.S. ULSD regulations were implemented. Current U.S. ULSD is regulated to contain no more than 15-parts per million sulfur. In actual practice, U.S. ULSD contains just 7 or 8-ppm, which perhaps not coincidentally allows our ULSD to meet the somewhat stricter 10-ppm sulfur regulations in Europe. So, ULSD produced here in the United States has, for the first time, become acceptable for use in Europe. According to a 2/08 article in Reuters entitled "ANALYSIS-Exports keep U.S. diesel prices above gasoline", they reported that U.S. diesel fuel is currently being exported in quantity. The economics of "Supply & Demand" no longer apply to the U.S. diesel fuel market. American truckers could boycott diesel fuel, and it wouldn't necessarily produce lower diesel fuel prices.

According to a June 2008 article at MSN, entitled: Why is the U.S. exporting gasoline and diesel?, they report that U.S. oil companies were exporting more than 1.8 million barrels of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other refined products per day. The top five buyers of U.S. petroleum products were Mexico, Canada, the Netherlands, Chile and Singapore. This article also indicated that Venezuela owns three CITGO refineries in the United States, and that about 30,000 barrels of refined products per day are being shipped back to Venezuela, where government-subsidized gas/diesel is currently being sold for a whopping $0.19 per gallon. If we weren't exporting diesel fuel, there would be more of a surplus, which could result in parity between gas and diesel fuel prices. What can we do? What should we do?

Hey, Maxine Waters and Maurice Hinchey, how about we "socialize" CITGO's refineries? I'm sure your good buddy Hugo Chavez wouldn't mind a bit!

In associated news, the same article reports:

Surprisingly, most of the world's "unconventional" sources of oil exist right here in the United States. These unconventional sources include the vast oil shale deposits called the Green River Formation, which are found spanning an ancient 17,000 square mile lake bed beneath Colorado, Utah and Wyoming (80% on federal lands). Oil shale can produce anywhere from 22-40 gallons of oil per ton of oil shale. A barrel of crude oil contains 42 gallons. Based on current extraction technology, at least 100 billion barrels of "commercially viable" crude oil is thought to exist in Green River Formation. (Note: the total amount of all oil shale within the U.S. is thought to contain a staggering 1.4 trillion barrels of crude oil, which is more than four times the estimated historic levels of oil found beneath Saudi Arabia.) With a current U.S. consumption rate of 20 million barrels per day, 100 billion barrels of crude oil derived from oil shale could meet all of the U.S. oil consumption needs for another 14 years - all by itself. See: www.fossil.energy.gov to learn more.

Shell scientists have created the technology required to economically extract large amounts of crude oil from oil shale without wrecking the environment. In fact, Shell's method is capable of extracting high quality light crude oil from oil shale deposits utilizing heated wells - not a rock mill operation, which does little damage to the environment. According to a November 2007 article in CNN Fortune - online magazine, a Department of Energy study was referenced that indicates the Green River deposits are predicted to produce 2 million barrels of oil per day by 2020 and as many as 5 million barrels per day by 2040 - assuming of course, that the environmental lobby and Washington could be convinced that the future of the U.S. depends on us becoming energy independent. Indeed, this level of production would rival that of the largest conventional oilfields in the world. 2007 estimates for cost per barrel came in at a low of $30/barrel, while cost estimates for a broader range of oil shale deposits range from a low $30 to as high as $90 per barrel. Shell's production methods are expected to yield more than one million barrels of oil per acre. Keep in mind that the Green River Formation encompasses 17,000 square miles.

I was certain I'd referenced Shell's extraction technology, called the "in situ conversion process" here before, but damn if I can find the piece now.

I Want to Know

I Want to Know...

...what the energy-balance equation for this process looks like:

According to Mr. Kertz, an acre of corn (Archer Daniels Midland's favorite crop!) will produce 18 gallons of corn oil per year. An acre of oil palms can produce 700-800 gallons of palm oil per year. In an open pond, algae will produce "up to 20,000 gallons" per acre per year - of whatever oil the algae is designed to produce. With this process? He doesn't say.

Still, the algae has to be fed, it has to be pumped, the oil has to be processed, and the total energy out cannot be more than the total energy in, though the majority of the energy comes from photosynthesis - which (as I understand it) is MUCH more efficient than the best solar cell made.

This sounds interesting. I wonder if it can be adapted to use with bacteria? Biofuel technology seems to be the current rage. According to The Arizona Republic, Arizona State University researchers are studying a cyanobacteria that eats the exhaust of electric generating stations and produces crude oil. ON top of that:

XL Renewables Inc., which has a Casa Grande development center where officials hope to open a 40-acre algae production site in November. The company also offers algae-growing systems for sale.

Scottsdale-based PetroSun Inc., a gas- and oil-drilling company, announced in February that it formed a joint venture with Gilbert-based Optimum Biofuels to build an algae biorefinery near Coolidge. PetroSun, a publicly traded penny stock, also has announced plans to open similar plants in Louisiana, Texas, Mexico and Central America.

Amereco Biofuels Corp., which has a small biodiesel project in the far West Valley using recycled restaurant cooking oil, is researching various strains of algae for biodiesel.

All of this looks interesting, but I imagine that none of it is economically viable if the price of crude drops much below $80 per barrel. We still need oil, and we will for at least the rest of my projected lifetime.

Like I said below, we'd best get to drilling.

Just Wave Your Hands...

...the obstacles will all disappear! Jeff over at Damnum Absque Injuria links to a particularly Pollyannish post at The Richmond Democrat that begins:

We cannot drill our way out of the current crisis of higher gasoline prices. Why? It is a simple matter of supply and demand. While the supply of oil is finite, the demand for oil is ever expanding. No matter how many holes we drill, we will never catch up to the global demand for oil-based motor fuels as they are currently used.

Trying to drill our way out of this crisis is a little like chasing the Sun on a bicycle: you can pedal all you want and you may even feel like you are making a little forward progress, but the Sun will inevitably pull away from you. The demand for oil will inevitably pull away from the supply, and the more the gap between supply and demand widens, the higher the price of gasoline will go. We cannot address this crisis on the supply side of the equation because the available supply--even if we were to drill as many holes as we could--is both finite and insufficient.

As Jeff asks, "WTF part of 'supply and demand' don't you understand?"

But it gets even better. This guy swoons over hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid cars and new battery technologies. Hell, for him hydrogen is the fuel of the future!

The other possible technological solution I mentioned, the hydrogen fuel cell, is extremely promising for one reason that ordinary Americans would do well the consider: the technological problems associated with fuel cells are almost entirely concerned with the fuel cells themselves and not with the fuel source!

Hydrogen is everywhere and the technology for extracting it from our environment is relatively simple. Gasoline is extracted from crude oil, which is rare and therefore expensive (supply and demand again). Hydrogen can be extracted from water and water is everywhere, covering three-quarters of the Earth's surface, and is cheap, cheap, cheap. In fact, the stuff falls out of the sky as rain, free of charge. When you use gasoline as fuel it is gone for good, becoming more and more scarce and therefore more and more expensive. When you use hydrogen in a fuel cell, it becomes water again. The same hydrogen molecules, the "H2" in H2O, can be used over and over and over again. Hydrogen will never become scarce: you cannot corner the market on hydrogen.

He does make faint mouth-noises that none of this is a free lunch:

Batteries could be recharged with electricity generated by coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind or some other technology yet to be invented. The United States has access to all these sources of power.

But nowhere in this wonderful paean to The Future! does he acknowledge that hydrogen isn't a fuel. It's just another not-very-convenient or efficient way to store energy converted from some other form. So I wrote a comment. His comments are moderated before being posted, and none had been posted at the time I wrote mine, so I saved a copy. Here it is:

Hydrogen is everywhere and the technology for extracting it from our environment is relatively simple.

Yes. All it takes is energy.

Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It's just another way to store energy, and the amount of energy you can get out of hydrogen you "extract" from other compounds is less than the amount of energy it takes to do the extraction.

This is fine if you have abundant excess energy, but one of the problems we have today is that such excess does not exist. The simplest way to extract hydrogen is through electrolysis of water. That requires electricity. Most of our electrical generation plants burn oil, natural gas, or coal. There is excess capacity - the plants don't run at full load at night, for example, but you still have to burn fossil fuels to run them, and the amount of energy required to crack water into H2 and O2 is more than you get back by burning the H2 and O2 back into water, even if you use the H2 in a fuel cell.

Plug-in hybrids? Again, where does that electricity come from? Are you advocating a massive building program for new nuclear generating stations?

The less oil we use, the less oil will cost.

Only if everyone uses less oil. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that oil is used worldwide for fuel, and for feedstocks in the manufacturing of plastics, lubricants, and other vital chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides. Sure, it's possible to reduce our use, but China and India are ramping up their use, and they're not alone, so the laws of supply and demand will remain in force. The world usage of oil will continue to increase. We'd better start drilling where we know oil is to try to keep supply somewhere near demand as long as we can.

Will new technologies help? Certainly. But new technologies take time. Hydrogen fusion power has been "20 years away" for as long as I can remember. We're making great strides forward in battery and supercapacitor technology, but again, where does the electricity come from? Solar and wind have the drawback of not being dependable, or very energy dense. Wave and tide power could be promising, but I'm waiting for the environmentalist crowd to start protesting the construction of anything near a shoreline.

Hell, I'm waiting for the environmentalists to shut down mines where the metals necessary for those hybrid batteries and fuel cells are dug up, and the plants where they are refined. Nickel, lithium, lead, copper, titanium, aluminum, all that stuff comes out of the ground, and the byproducts can be nasty. There's a proposed copper mine near where I live that they're bound and determined to prevent the opening of.

Plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are NOT a solution. The energy to charge the batteries or crack the hydrogen needs to come from somewhere.

Face it: The only technology that's going to help any time soon is nuclear power. (More mining.) It can help ease the transition away from oil - but in the near term we need more OIL, and we'd better start drilling SOON.

And I DARE you to approve this comment, unedited. (I'm posting a copy, BTW, with a link.)

I would ask how in the world did people get to be so clueless, but I've already answered my own question.

He did let it through moderation along with several others, kudos to him for that. Then he replied that we "didn't read his post." I have another comment pending moderation. We'll see if that one goes through.

UPDATE: It did.