PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[Paco Del Stinko]

Ha ha! I liked when McCain was yelling, a few weeks ago, about how all the senators were taking a vacation and that we should tell them all to get back to work. Uh, hello? Is this thing on? Sibilance! Sibilance!

[HeuristicsInc]

FYI Obama voted last in July... certainly more recent than April.
-bill

[Caravan Ray]

I also happened to find this particularly funny. Does anyone else cringe like I do when listening to that?

The best part is that under "related videos," the first item is the Miss South Carolina answer about students being unable to point out the U.S. on a map.

Ha!

I thought the same thing. That is hilarious!

[Sober]

Tax calculator! Enter in basic information about your yearly earn, and it tells you what your post-tax income under an Obama or McCain presidency.

It does, however, fail to indicate whether you will lose your job because of who's in office.

[Sober]

While I think the debate was a clear Obama victory (notwithstanding the weirdness of McCain never looking at him), it was nice to hear McCain say he was against ethanol. I like it because ethanol is the worst idea ever, and by saying so aloud he's given up on winning Iowa.

I watched the debate at my friend's house, and we watched it on CNN in HD. I think this is a repeat of the 1960 debates. If I'd heard the debate on the radio, I'd give it to Obama maybe 55-45. But seeing how clearly flustered McCain was, and the uncomfortable way he avoided Obama's gaze made it more like 80-20 in my eyes, and polls are already showing similar national trends, though to a lesser extent.

[Caravan Ray]

I like it because ethanol is the worst idea ever,

Ethanol isn't really the worst idea ever. It can be useful means of reducing emissions under the right circumstances. It is thinking that ethanol can be used a substitute for petroleum and thus negating the need to reduce fuel consumption that is the worst idea ever.

It tastes nice too.

[JonPorobil]

The main reason ethanol is a terrible idea is because most of it comes from fermenting corn, which is grown in big farms with the assistance of fertilizer, which requires the use of fossil fuels to produce and adequately distribute. Not to mention that even if fossil fuels weren't so inherent in the process of producing ethanol fuel, there still wouldn't be enough land on the planet to grow enough corn for ethanol to replace fossil fuels as the dominant fuel source.

[Billy's Little Trip]

The main reason ethanol is a terrible idea is because most of it comes from fermenting corn, which is grown in big farms with the assistance of fertilizer, which requires the use of fossil fuels to produce and adequately distribute. Not to mention that even if fossil fuels weren't so inherent in the process of producing ethanol fuel, there still wouldn't be enough land on the planet to grow enough corn for ethanol to replace fossil fuels as the dominant fuel source.

Well, if they had enough ethanol, they could run the equipment off of ethanol.
Hybrids of corn can grow anywhere, like the desert, in the snow, underwater. There is a lot of land in the world that will never be inhabitable.
But, I think we're way past ethanol for commercial use. Electric cars seem like a good idea, but until our electricity comes strictly from inertia or the sun, it's only a little better for a huge price tag and still a huge fossil fuel consuming monster.

Hydrogen energy and hydrogen cells are the future. To make electricity, to make ethanol, I don't care. When every motor, pump, generator, engine, factory and hydrogen power plant is run off hydrogen power, we are heading in the right direction.

Popular Mechanic: Hydrogen contains almost three times as much energy as natural gas, and when consumed its only emission is pure, plain water. Fuel cell vehicles can now travel 300 miles on 17.6 pounds of hydrogen and achieve speeds of up to 132 mph.
17.6 pounds is equivalent to the weight of around 2 gallons of water.

And yes, sadly we are way off from the average residential use of hydrogen power and quite possibly will never see it powering our MP3 players. There are too many great controlling powers in the world making too much money on our other forms of energy. Until they can figure out how to monopolize it at very little cost to them (like wait until it's perfected, then steal it) we may never see hydrogen power as our future energy source.

~Hydrogen Power, Vote BLT 2008

[Lord of Oats]

WELL IMO

Ethanol may turn out to be a fine fuel source. Manufacturing corn ethanol, on the other hand, has turned out to be an inefficient waste of time. Iowa has plenty of other things to do with their corn (e.g., use it for food and/or feed, burn it in a boiler, compost it, dump it in the ocean, or just stop planting so much damned corn).

MR. BLT

As always, holy shit. Let's go down the list.

1. I've read quite a few times that it requires something like three gallons of gasoline to manufacture one gallon of ethanol. And the ethanol has something like 62% as much energy per gram. SO you're basically proposing that we burn around 15 gallons of ethanol in order to manufacture one gallon of ethanol. THAT OR WE COULD JUST GIVE UP ON MECHANIZED AGRICULTURE (not a bad idea if you're only trying to provide for yourself). Then again, we could consider means of production more efficient than corn mash whiskey distillation.

2. Corn will not grow in the desert. Corn requires more water than cotton. It's not advisable to grow it anywhere if you don't have irrigation, unless you're certain you've got a lot of rain in your future.

3. Corn will not grow in the snow. It barely tolerates frost. I mean, come on. In North Florida, you can plant corn in August or March. The summer is too hot and the winter is too cold. And it doesn't get that cold here, really.

4. Corn will not grow underwater. Where is it going to get oxygen? Or is this corn hybridized with kelp or something?

5. We can convert inertia into electricity? Or do you mean mechanical energy? I mean, you can harness the energy from a moving object, but you have to make it start moving first. If you want to take advantage of its inertia, well, first, you'll have to fight its inertia. Or do you mean wind power? Wind is a good energy source. But yeah, you're right on one count. If I drove an electric car, it'd probably be like...a coal-driven car...indirectly.

6. Fuel cells are nice. They're remarkably efficient compared to combustion engines. So once we develop that, we can start using a lot less energy to power our cars. That said, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET ALL THIS HYDROGEN?! We likely had quite a bit of elemental hydrogen on the earth at some point, but it was so light that IT ALL FLOATED AWAY INTO SPACE AND IT IS NOT HERE ANYMORE.

JESUS CHRIST GET YOUR SCIENCE RIGHT BEFORE YOU POST

[Caravan Ray]

The main reason ethanol is a terrible idea is because most of it comes from fermenting corn, which is grown in big farms with the assistance of fertilizer, which requires the use of fossil fuels to produce and adequately distribute. Not to mention that even if fossil fuels weren't so inherent in the process of producing ethanol fuel, there still wouldn't be enough land on the planet to grow enough corn for ethanol to replace fossil fuels as the dominant fuel source.

The main reason your post makes no sense is that you didn't actually read the post that you think you are responding to. I mean - what you wrote is generally correct (though most ethanol does not come from corn (please try not to be so USA-centric, you do actually only occupy an insignificantly small percentage of the earth) - more ethanol comes from sugar than corn). But the idea of demonising ethanol as a fuel is silly.

Most petrol in Australia now contains about 10% ethanol which comes from excess sugar production. If the sugar is already being grown and the price of sugar is low - it makes sense to use it as ethanol rather than just wasting it.

That is why I wrote:
Ethanol isn't really the worst idea ever. It can be useful means of reducing emissions under the right circumstances. It is thinking that ethanol can be used a substitute for petroleum and thus negating the need to reduce fuel consumption that is the worst idea ever.

Growing crops specifically to produce ethanol to try to replace petroleum is stupid. Using existing crops to supplement petroleum while alternative fuels/transportation/town planning solutions are sought makes perfect sense.

[Sober]

Wow, guys. Are we really arguing about ethanol? And LOA, are you really arguing against a mostly sarcastic post (also: I read inertia to be 'turbine-based,' where you already have moving objects (wind, water))?

Yes, ethanol does suck, for many reasons. It sucks particularly bad for the US for even more reasons, particularly because of how and why it was forced upon us. It was pushed through by the corn lobby quickly and without any real public scrutiny.

I'd rather have discussion of McCain NEVER LOOKING AT OBAMA. Even when they shook hands, McCain's focus was off into space:

[erik]

I'd rather have discussion of McCain NEVER LOOKING AT OBAMA.

I think that people who only watch highlights will end up not getting how painful this was to watch. It was clear that neither one of them was really prepared for Lehrer's "I want you all to talk to EACH OTHER" style of debating that he kept trying to push on them, but early on you could see Obama making an effort to look at McCain (in addition to looking at Lehrer and into the camera). Not that I wanted a staring contest, but it's culturally normative to look at someone when you are talking about them, or when they are talking about you. It so freaked me out, expecially the wide shots from the left of the stage where McCain was closer to the camera, and you can clearly see Obama looking at McCain and talking to McCain, but McCain just keeps staring straight ahead.

Not to be all "I can't trust someone who doesn't look you in the eye when he's talking to you" but I just found it increasingly hard to listen to McCain because he was refusing to make eye-contact with Obama, and I started paying more attention to this ideosyncracy rather than what he was saying.

I think for the next debate drinking game, I will have to add "McCain looks at Obama" because someone HAS to have told him that he can't do that again. It was so distracting.

[jb]

If anybody was looking to determine character from this debate, I think Obama was a clear winner. Aside from never looking at Obama, McCain was very antagonistic and uncharitable.

On the other hand, when McCain had trouble saying "Ahmadinejad", Obama merely said sincerely "that's tough". A couple times when they started to shout over each other, Obama was the one who said let's move on. One time saying "Fair enough, next question".

On foreign policy, yeah McCain has a lot more knowledge of the situation. But philosophy counts, and my take is that McCain's going to use all that knowledge to attempt to affect things according to a philosophy that I disagree with. He spent some time in the debate being juvenile about Obama "saying out loud" he'd attack Pakistan. I didn't hear anybody declare that, but I do remember McCain being pretty saber-rattly towards Russia over the past couple months.

I don't think this debate will change anyone's mind, but I watched the CNN airing of the debate where they had the observers hitting buttons when they approved of what was being said, and the lines looked like the Independents were a lot happier when Obama was talking than McCain.

JB

[JonPorobil]

CNN did that, but so did Fox News, and, surprisingly, with similar results. Even the Fox News panel favored Obama more. What's up with that?

I have to say, even as a big Obama supporter, I thought the debate was at best a draw, and most of my coworkers agreed with me. McCain kept pulling that stunt where he says something like "See, Mr. Obama doesn't quite understand the complexity of this issue, because he doesn't have the experience I have." It's an underhanded trick, but he did it so many times that I'd be surprised if it didn't resonate with some swing voters. It's frustrating stuff; my Dad's super-Republican racist friends say things like that when trying to justify, say, voting for David Duke.

Some things really are that simple. Afghanistan, the Taliban, and al Qaeda are still our enemies, and still have not yet been dealt with. The war in Iraq is over and neither we nor Iraq stand to benefit from us staying there for much longer. Our economy is broken, and unless we make fixing it our top priority, we will no longer be able to maintain our status as a superpower.

These are inherently simple statements whose truth, I feel, ought to be obvious to everyone. Obama's strength is in his ability to simplify this stuff for the people and put forth a clear and direct message to the people. McCain's strength is in making it seem like anything simple enough for the average American citizen to understand must be false, and tried at every turn to make Obama look like a little kid with a head full of hopeless ideas.

Did it work? I'm sure nobody here fell for it, but swing voters and rural viewers likely responded to it.

The good news is that the theme of the night was foreign policy, which McCain and his advisers regard as his political forte. He's only going to get worse from here. I'm pretty sure Barack can wipe the floor with what's left of McCain's hair in the next two debates.

[Billy's Little Trip]

WELL IMO

Ethanol may turn out to be a fine fuel source. Manufacturing corn ethanol, on the other hand, has turned out to be an inefficient waste of time. Iowa has plenty of other things to do with their corn (e.g., use it for food and/or feed, burn it in a boiler, compost it, dump it in the ocean, or just stop planting so much damned corn).

MR. BLT

As always, holy shit. Let's go down the list.

1. I've read quite a few times that it requires something like three gallons of gasoline to manufacture one gallon of ethanol. And the ethanol has something like 62% as much energy per gram. SO you're basically proposing that we burn around 15 gallons of ethanol in order to manufacture one gallon of ethanol. THAT OR WE COULD JUST GIVE UP ON MECHANIZED AGRICULTURE (not a bad idea if you're only trying to provide for yourself). Then again, we could consider means of production more efficient than corn mash whiskey distillation.

2. Corn will not grow in the desert. Corn requires more water than cotton. It's not advisable to grow it anywhere if you don't have irrigation, unless you're certain you've got a lot of rain in your future.

3. Corn will not grow in the snow. It barely tolerates frost. I mean, come on. In North Florida, you can plant corn in August or March. The summer is too hot and the winter is too cold. And it doesn't get that cold here, really.

4. Corn will not grow underwater. Where is it going to get oxygen? Or is this corn hybridized with kelp or something?

5. We can convert inertia into electricity? Or do you mean mechanical energy? I mean, you can harness the energy from a moving object, but you have to make it start moving first. If you want to take advantage of its inertia, well, first, you'll have to fight its inertia. Or do you mean wind power? Wind is a good energy source. But yeah, you're right on one count. If I drove an electric car, it'd probably be like...a coal-driven car...indirectly.

6. Fuel cells are nice. They're remarkably efficient compared to combustion engines. So once we develop that, we can start using a lot less energy to power our cars. That said, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET ALL THIS HYDROGEN?! We likely had quite a bit of elemental hydrogen on the earth at some point, but it was so light that IT ALL FLOATED AWAY INTO SPACE AND IT IS NOT HERE ANYMORE.

JESUS CHRIST GET YOUR SCIENCE RIGHT BEFORE YOU POST

1. Actually, it's 1.2 gallons of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of ethanol. It takes 1.1 gallon of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of regular gasoline. But what's funny, all the studies I've seen so far in calculating the cost to make ethanol include everything from making the fertilizer, running tractors, to powering the plant ethanol is made, etc. The 1.1 gallon of fossil fuel to refine a gallon of gasoline never adds in the cost of drilling, the fuel used in a Suezmax tanker to ship it, etc etc. Mainly because we pay X amount for a barrel of oil, so we don't care about the costs associated beforehand. But what about the greenhouse gas, etc, etc? Shouldn't we care about that? Shouldn't we care about our dependency on foreign oil? They did come up with a number in one study that shows that it takes 2.1 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of gas. For what it's worth.

Ethanol and regular gas don't compare the same gallon for gallon in energy produced per unit. But they are testing it on vehicles that were designed for regular gas. So I think that's pretty impressive that it's comparing as well as it is. Maybe more research and development might make it great? Who knows.
MY "calm down Oats" BOLD STATEMENT on this. I'd rather pay a little more for ethanol than depend on foreign oil. But I personally don't think ethanol is our best source of future energy. Maybe in part and supplemented, but not a main source.

2, 3 and 4. Yes, they do have hybrids of corn that grow in these conditions. And yes, they are all crossbred with plants in those environments. I saw it on discovery, google it. The corn that is being developed strictly for bio fuel doesn't even look like corn. In fact, the underwater "corn" looked to me more like kelp.

5. Yes, I'm referring to the combination of an energy sources to get a car moving and generating energy from the moving vehicle. Basically like a Prius hybrid, but without the use of fossil fuels entirely.

6. Are you joking? You do realize when they are talking about hydrogen as a renewable power source, they are talking about electrolysis, right? Not the gas that ALL FLOATED AWAY, as you mentioned, lol. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen (H2O). The electrolysis process is simply splitting the hydrogen from the oxygen. The byproduct is pure water.
NASA has used hydrogen as an energy fuel for years in the space program. Liquid hydrogen fuel lifts the space shuttle into orbit. Hydrogen batteries, (fuel cells) power the shuttle’s electrical systems. The only by-product is pure water, which the crew uses as drinking water.
I'm telling you, skippy, it really is our future and we need to make it affordable and safe. Right now it is safe in cell form, but incredibly expensive to make.

[Reist]

The electrolysis process is simply splitting the hydrogen from the oxygen. The byproduct is pure water.

Wouldn't the byproduct of electrolysis be hydrogen and oxygen?

[Billy's Little Trip]

The electrolysis process is simply splitting the hydrogen from the oxygen. The byproduct is pure water.

Wouldn't the byproduct of electrolysis be hydrogen and oxygen?

Not when the principal product goal is the hydrogen. The process separates and captures the hydrogen gas and dispels the oxygen to the atmosphere. Then when the hydrogen is recombined with oxygen in a combustion chamber, it explodes, the exhausted by-product is water.

Here is a little explanation I found on the BMW 750hl:
How A Hydrogen Engine Works In A BMW 750hl

Electricity generated from solar power is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen is released into the atmosphere, while hydrogen is liquefied and stored at a very low temperature (-253 °C).

During internal combustion, the hydrogen combines with oxygen. The resulting energy powers the vehicle, while the hydrogen is returned to the environment as water. Harmful emissions are virtually eliminated.

By cooling hydrogen to -253°C, hydrogen is shrunk to a thousandth of its original volume. Seventy layers of aluminium and fiberglass sheets between the exterior and interior vehicle walls ensure that the liquid hydrogen remains at extremely low temperatures.

[JonPorobil]

The only problem with this is that electrolysis is currently still energy-consumptive enough to not be efficient for general use. Hydrogen gas can't be separated from water without already having energy, which clearly must come from a source other than hydrogen fuel. You don't get enough energy from hydrogen to initiate an electrolysis reaction, so every time a hydrogen fuel cell is created, there's a net loss of energy. It's environmentally sound, because the only byproduct is pure H2O, sure. But only if the energy from creating the hydrogen fuel cell comes from some other clean energy. Otherwise, not only is it as bad for the environment as fossil fuels, it's also unsustainable.

[Sober]

Cold-water fusion is obviously what we're looking for.



*hotlinking is fun!

[Billy's Little Trip]

The only problem with this is that electrolysis is currently still energy-consumptive enough to not be efficient for general use. Hydrogen gas can't be separated from water without already having energy, which clearly must come from a source other than hydrogen fuel. You don't get enough energy from hydrogen to initiate an electrolysis reaction, so every time a hydrogen fuel cell is created, there's a net loss of energy. It's environmentally sound, because the only byproduct is pure H2O, sure. But only if the energy from creating the hydrogen fuel cell comes from some other clean energy. Otherwise, not only is it as bad for the environment as fossil fuels, it's also unsustainable.

"Electricity generated from solar power is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen"

I never said it's sitting on the doorstep. I said this is a future power source that will be far superior and less damaging to the environment. Eventually it will be sustainable.

The BMW (leave it to the Germans) development and tests on the 750hl is funded by BMW inc. It isn't costing tax payers a cent.

BMW's research with hydrogen power is a step in the right direction for our future energy crisis and environmental issues relating to our current energy sources. Can we agree on that?

[JonPorobil]

So hey, if you're getting energy from an alternative source (such as, in this example, Solar Energy), then why use that energy on electrolysis for the express purpose of then using the hydrogen to power the car, instead of powering the car directly through that alternative source? In other words, why create solar energy just to make fuel, when we could have solar battery-powered cars?


On an unrelated note, I had a dream last night that John McCain died before election day. This is the second time I've had such a dream; the first time was before he announced his running mate. This one was longer and more vivid. How strange.

[Hoblit]

So hey, if you're getting energy from an alternative source (such as, in this example, Solar Energy), then why use that energy on electrolysis for the express purpose of then using the hydrogen to power the car, instead of powering the car directly through that alternative source? In other words, why create solar energy just to make fuel, when we could have solar battery-powered cars?


On an unrelated note, I had a dream last night that John McCain died before election day. This is the second time I've had such a dream; the first time was before he announced his running mate. This one was longer and more vivid. How strange.

Because in your scenario the equipment to generate solar power may be better suited as a stimulus to the other energy system. Solar power can be stored in a battery. That battery system (not to mention potential limitations to solar panel build in space) may not be enough to power the whole car. The current battery (no pun intended) can't power your whole car by itself. It only powers the electrical system. It even has to get re-charged as you are driving. The solar power battery may just store enough energy for a rainy day to ignite the other fuel system.

I mean, in any given scenario that may be why.