News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

I'll just add to my post above:


Every year that FDR was in office for his first two terms, unemployment fell. The only exceptions being in 1937 and 1938. The numbers only say that unemployment grew if you count government workers as "Unemployed" which they aren't, since they are doing a job and getting paid for it (thus "employed").

Also during FDR's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at rates of between 9-10%, massive growth for a depression if you ask me.

20% of banks failed when Hoover did nothing, each one that failed leading to the next one failing due to a lack of programs like the FDIC, as people didn't think their money was safe in a bank, opting instead for the good ol' mattress. That is, until FDR stabilized the banks through the FDIC and other programs.

The growth wasn't only in government jobs though, the private sector also grew. With the banks stabilizing, small businesses could pull money in and out, invest it, reinvest, get loans, whatever they needed again without fear of the bank disappearing the next day.

If that isn't proof enough, the two years in which unemployment grew (1937-1938) are the two years in which FDR pulled back his New Deal program because conservatives asked him to. They said "balance the budget - or try to" so he raised taxes and cut spending, and the depression continued because of this until a new bailout of sorts came along in the form of WWII.

I'll assume this is your opinion - other opinions conclude FDR extended the Depression with his policies - IMO.

Obviously the 1930's economy (size/structure/complexity) differs from the 2011 - 2012 economy as do the social safety net.

 

[WhoWee]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...

Huh?

 

[turbo]

Huh?

You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?

 

[WhoWee]

You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?

Well, I've searched for his announcement of an employment plan for returning vets - all I could find was this:

http://www.opm.gov/News_Events/congress/testimony/112thCongress/04_13_2011.asp

It looks like his plan is to give them Government jobs?

Did you find anything?

 

[drankin]

You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?

Until a plan is revealed. There is no plan. No need to support "nothing". To assume there must be one just because, makes no sense.

 

[turbo]

Well, I've searched for his announcement of an employment plan for returning vets - all I could find was this:

http://www.opm.gov/News_Events/congress/testimony/112thCongress/04_13_2011.asp

It looks like his plan is to give them Government jobs?

Did you find anything?

I shouldn't have to find anything. You made the claim.

 

[WhoWee]

I shouldn't have to find anything. You made the claim.

No turbo - you made the claim when you posted:

"Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets."

 

[BobG]

I'm sure we would have heard something about his glorious plan by now - if he had one - don't you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...

Or, perhaps, because no new plan is necessary. How members of the Guard and Reserve are handled has been law for many years. The only reason a plan would be necessary for active duty members is if a withdrawal from Afghanistan meant a reduction in the size of the military.

Post World War II, there was a serious reduction in the size of the military and the GI Bill was the plan. It at least extended the reentry of vets into the workforce since many could go to school instead. The rest was handled culturally as returning vets replaced women in the work force, while the women became housewives. That plan probably wouldn't work today.

Likewise, there was a serious reduction in the size of the military when the Soviet Union broke up and the cold war ended. Fortunately, that reduction in force occurred during an economic boom and finding jobs wasn't a huge problem. That plan probably wouldn't work today, either.

But, the more relevant point is that there probably isn't even a need for a plan.

 

[turbo]

No turbo - you made the claim when you posted:

"Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets."

"I doubt" means that my thoughts on the administration's policy regarding returning vets is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that employment opportunities for them have not been considered.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Although I agree with you here, you should probably source your info. Just sayin'.

Yeah, sometimes I really cannot be arsed to cite history books, I'll go and pull some graphs now and maybe the hard numbers later.

The "appeal to authority" logical fallacy? Most people don't admit to it so openly.

Anyway, a little research will show that economists are actually very divided on the issue, and always have been. Non-Keynesian economists generally agree that FDR's policies made the situation far worse, while Keynesian economists say otherwise. The same disagreement exists today: economics is divided into ideological camps.

IMO, Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers believing whatever serves their agenda. It has been used by the left as a license to steal since FDR.

If Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers, then non-keynesian is just a cover for right-wingers. cwutididthar? The last paragraph is really just a bunch of fluff.

Anyway, the fact is that during his time unemployment went down and the economy grew 9-10%.

Unemployment (in graph form, yay):

And here's the GDP:

In 1937 and 1938 FDR cut spending and raised taxes in order to balance the budget more, and both graphs agree: GDP went down and unemployment went up.

Keynesian or not, whatever it was FDR was doing was working, and when he tried to do the other thing (back out and let the free market do its thing) the unemployment numbers went up, and growth not only stopped, but became shrinkage.

Saying "It could have been faster" is like saying your doctor prolonged your pain because it took 9 weeks for your leg to heal instead of 7.

 

[turbo]

Or, perhaps, because no new plan is necessary. How members of the Guard and Reserve are handled has been law for many years. The only reason a plan would be necessary for active duty members is if a withdrawal from Afghanistan meant a reduction in the size of the military.

There may be some need for action as these vets return. If their employers have hired replacements or eliminated their jobs and refuse to re-hire them, there could be some complications. There are also a lot of folks that had their own businesses and had to give them up and/or leave them in other hands while they served us overseas. They may need training and/or financial assistance (loan guarantees, perhaps) in order to rebuild.

 

[WhoWee]

"I doubt" means that my thoughts on the administration's policy regarding returning vets is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that employment opportunities for them have not been considered.

Accordingly, it's my opinion that if President Obama had a plan - we would hear about it from him.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Accordingly, it's my opinion that if President Obama had a plan - we would hear about it from him.

Because every plan that Obama comes up with is presented in a speech?

 

[WhoWee]

Because every plan that Obama comes up with is presented in a speech?

In the context of this thread?

 

[Ryumast3r]

In the context of this thread?

Yes, even in the context of this thread I'd disagree that Obama vocalizes every plan he comes up with as soon as he comes up with it. They're really still debating over the troop withdrawal plan because some fear it might hurt Afghanistan and empower the Taliban more. This is all just my opinion, but if I were in his shoes, I'd wait until the debate is settled (in terms of the effect on afghanistan) before I started a new debate on how to handle the troops homecoming. If the debate became too long, well, December is still a long way out, and there's always time for a speech between now and then.

That, and unveiling some kind of grand scheme for the troops closer to the elections could probably not hurt, if people liked it anyway.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, even in the context of this thread I'd disagree that Obama vocalizes every plan he comes up with as soon as he comes up with it. They're really still debating over the troop withdrawal plan because some fear it might hurt Afghanistan and empower the Taliban more. This is all just my opinion, but if I were in his shoes, I'd wait until the debate is settled (in terms of the effect on afghanistan) before I started a new debate on how to handle the troops homecoming. If the debate became too long, well, December is still a long way out, and there's always time for a speech between now and then.

That, and unveiling some kind of grand scheme for the troops closer to the elections could probably not hurt, if people liked it anyway.

Well - IMO - leaders lead. If he wants advice he should talk to his military leaders - I assume you're talking about the political debate?

 

[Al68]

If Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers, then non-keynesian is just a cover for right-wingers.

Sure, it theoretically could be, but non-Keynesian (post-Enlightenment) economics as a science was around long before the science of economics was corrupted for political purposes. Keynes hit the scene in the 1930s, along with the worldwide spread of leftist/socialist/FDR propaganda he supported, and the politicization of economics in general. Keynesian economics was essentially created to politically support economic oppression.

Regardless, your point is valid in the sense that one needs to recognize that the science of economics has become politicized, and unlike chemistry, for example, ideology plays a huge role.

In 1937 and 1938 FDR cut spending and raised taxes in order to balance the budget more, and both graphs agree: GDP went down and unemployment went up.

Of course: the spending cuts were http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf" relative to the economy-draining tax increases.

Keynesian or not, whatever it was FDR was doing was working, and when he tried to do the other thing (back out and let the free market do its thing) the unemployment numbers went up, and growth not only stopped, but became shrinkage.

That's not only nonsense, it contradicts what you said above. Raising taxes hardly qualifies as "letting the free market do its thing". And you can't credit FDR policy for the economy initially doing what one would expect it to do faster without government intervention, based on the history of economic downturns.

Saying "It could have been faster" is like saying your doctor prolonged your pain because it took 9 weeks for your leg to heal instead of 7.

A better analogy would be claiming that someone banging on your cast with a hammer helped it, after it takes 9 weeks instead of 7 to heal.

As I pointed out above, it's typical for an economy to completely rebound from a downturn within a couple of years. The 1930s and today are pretty much the only examples to the contrary. And they have a lot in common as far as government intervention.

But if you really want to discuss the Great Depression in detail, I would suggest starting another thread. Otherwise, I really just wanted to point out that the science of economics has been politically and ideologically divided every since Keynes hit the scene. It's no longer a science in the way physics or chemistry is.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Otherwise, I really just wanted to point out that the science of economics has been politically and ideologically divided every since Keynes hit the scene. It's no longer a science in the way physics or chemistry is.

I can really agree here, and that goes for both sides, left and right. At any rate, economics has never really been precise.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Well - IMO - leaders lead. If he wants advice he should talk to his military leaders - I assume you're talking about the political debate?

Yeah, I'm talking about the political debate (though, IIRC I saw something about military leaders debating as well), and I would agree that he should talk to military leaders about the impact in Afghanistan, and talk to domestic experts as to the impact at home.

 

[BobG]

There may be some need for action as these vets return. If their employers have hired replacements or eliminated their jobs and refuse to re-hire them, there could be some complications. There are also a lot of folks that had their own businesses and had to give them up and/or leave them in other hands while they served us overseas. They may need training and/or financial assistance (loan guarantees, perhaps) in order to rebuild.

I can almost guarantee there will be at least a few employers that refuse to take vets back. There almost always are. And some vets won't realize they can take action or will decide that the actions required to get their job back will create such a hostile environment that it won't be worth it.

But, they certainly can get their job back if they want it unless the employer has changed so drastically during the interim that they can show taking them back is unfeasible. To do that, it would usually take more than simply eliminating the vet's old job (eliminating the vet's old job and replacing it with some other title is a trick that doesn't work). The company would have had to have undergone such a truly drastic change in size that any reasonable person would conclude that the vet's job would have been eliminated anyway.

Having hired a replacement for the vet wouldn't cut it. The employer would have to let the replacement go and rehire the vet. (Cole v Swint).

Not only will the vet get his job back but he also (http://www.la.ngb.army.mil/jag/publ...l Assistance USERRA Guide JA 270 19980601.pdf):

If you meet the eligibility criteria discussed above, you have seven basic entitlements:
a. Prompt reinstatement.
b. Accrued seniority, as if you had been continuously employed.
c. Status.
d. Health insurance coverage.
e. Other non-seniority benefits, as if you had been on a furlough or leave of absence.
f. Training or retraining and other accommodations.
g. Special protection against discharge, except for cause.

And, actually, employers can't legally discriminate against reservists when hiring or in deciding whether to retain employees. (Realistically, reservists and national guard members could experience problems if the employers were clever about it.) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-400.pdf

Private business, especially one such as a doctor or lawyer that will lose their customer base, is probably the one issue that isn't covered. You can't really order patients to go back to their old doctor now that he's returned from his year long deployment.

 

[BobG]

Who said the President doesn't have a clear (emergency?) energy policy?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/23/6926118-targeting-gas-prices-obama-administration-taps-strategic-oil-reserve

"Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the reserve, which the department calls "a key tool of foreign policy," are made by the president in the event of an "energy emergency." Prior to today's announcement, the reserve has been used under these circumstances just twice -- during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and after Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

IMO - the emergency in this case is poor polling results in accordance with gas prices?

IMO - we won't see drastic drops in prices at the pump. Generally speaking, this will result in a sharp drop in oil prices for gasoline retailers, but a very gradual downslope in the price of gasoline prices for customers. If there is such a thing as price gouging by gasoline companies, it's being very slow to drop retail prices when oil prices drop. There just isn't as much pressure from consumers when prices are going down.

If Obama somehow puts pressure on retailers to drop the price as fast as oil prices drop (either giving them bad PR or hint at threats to reduce oil subsidies/tax breaks, etc), then I would consider that a surprise success.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - we won't see drastic drops in prices at the pump. Generally speaking, this will result in a sharp drop in oil prices for gasoline retailers, but a very gradual downslope in the price of gasoline prices for customers. If there is such a thing as price gouging by gasoline companies, it's being very slow to drop retail prices when oil prices drop. There just isn't as much pressure from consumers when prices are going down.

If Obama somehow puts pressure on retailers to drop the price as fast as oil prices drop (either giving them bad PR or hint at threats to reduce oil subsidies/tax breaks, etc), then I would consider that a surprise success.

Isn't the amount released a 2 day equivalent supply?

 

[BobG]

Isn't the amount released a 2 day equivalent supply?

It doesn't have to replace an entire day's oil supply. It has to replace the 1.5 million barrels per day that Libya's not producing. Additionally, the 30 mil that the US will release is just half the total that the IEA (including the US) will release. Essentially, that's enough to cover the Libya gap for 40 days.

Hopefully, the release will have a greater effect on prices than it will the overall oil supply, since the loss of Libyan oil seems to have had a much greater impact on prices than such a small gap would be expected to have. At least a few think the Libya gap fueled speculation on the oil market and that the speculation had more effect on prices than the loss of Libya's oil.

The announcement has already driven crude oil prices down about $6.50 a barrel. Of course, the announcement also helped drive down stock prices, too, but a couple other things helped with the latter. It's trade-off, don't you know. Would you rather have a healthy 401k or a full gas tank?

 

[WhoWee]

It doesn't have to replace an entire day's oil supply. It has to replace the 1.5 million barrels per day that Libya's not producing. Additionally, the 30 mil that the US will release is just half the total that the IEA (including the US) will release. Essentially, that's enough to cover the Libya gap for 40 days.

Hopefully, the release will have a greater effect on prices than it will the overall oil supply, since the loss of Libyan oil seems to have had a much greater impact on prices than such a small gap would be expected to have. At least a few think the Libya gap fueled speculation on the oil market and that the speculation had more effect on prices than the loss of Libya's oil.

The announcement has already driven crude oil prices down about $6.50 a barrel. Of course, the announcement also helped drive down stock prices, too, but a couple other things helped with the latter. It's trade-off, don't you know. Would you rather have a healthy 401k or a full gas tank?

The President better hope the Saudi's approve of his move (and taking credit for a price change) - or we might see a cut in production.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/10/business/la-fi-saudioil-20110610

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The President better hope the Saudi's approve of his move (and taking credit for a price change) - or we might see a cut in production.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/10/business/la-fi-saudioil-20110610

Actually, the Saudi's had tried to increase production but other OPEC members rejected the motion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/saudis-face-opposition-to-possible-opec-increase.html

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, the Saudi's had tried to increase production but other OPEC members rejected the motion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/saudis-face-opposition-to-possible-opec-increase.html

That is not good news either - let's hope this isn't their excuse to re-align with their OPEC brothers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is not good news either - let's hope this isn't their excuse to re-align with their OPEC brothers.

It was the first time OPEC ended a meeting without an agreement.

Being mainly a product of the 70s and OPEC induced gas shortages, I took this as a good thing. Frankly, I would prefer they allow the prices to stay high. This is the only way we will ever end our reliance on oil.

Of course Presidents don't get reelected when oil prices are high, so Obama will be highly motivated to get prices down for the election season.

 

[WhoWee]

Being mainly a product of the 70s and OPEC induced gas shortages, I took this as a good thing. Frankly, I would prefer they allow the prices to stay high. This is the only way we will ever end our reliance on oil.

Please tell us it's because you believe strongly in bio-fuel technology - not because you favor electric cars powered by solar/wind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please tell us it's because you believe strongly in bio-fuel technology - not because you favor electric cars powered by solar/wind.

I dedicated two years of my life to the algae biofuel option.

While it [algae derived fuel] is too big of a challenge for the little guy [you needs $billions, not $millions to do this], I am convinced this or a similar technology is a critical component of our energy future.

While wind and solar have their place, imo we can't solve the energy problem without biofuels.

 

[WhoWee]

I dedicated two years of my life to the algae biofuel option.

While it [algae derived fuel] is too big of a challenge for the little guy [you needs $billions, not $millions to do this], I am convinced this or a similar technology is a critical component of our energy future.

While wind and solar have their place, imo we can't solve the energy problem without biofuels.

I have to admit, you've convinced me over time of the potential from algae. I'll believe in wind and solar when President Obama convinces Iran they are a better choice than nuclear power.

Until we have adequate supply at competitively priced alternatives - drill baby drill, frac baby frac, and squeeze (or whatever they do to the) sands - IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have to admit, you've convinced me over time of the potential from algae. I'll believe in wind and solar when President Obama convinces Iran they are a better choice than nuclear power.

Until we have adequate supply at competitively priced alternatives - drill baby drill, frac baby frac, and squeeze (or whatever they do to the) sands - IMO.

It seems to me that natural gas is a good interim solution. I have only seen this loosely cited [been meaning to do the math myself], but it is generally claimed that CH4 only emits about half the CO2 as does coal and other fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Obviously it is the cleanest fossil-fuel option wrt pollution in general - this means less economic impact on car companies trying to meet emission standards. We in the US are now, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "swimming in natural gas". And this can't be outsourced!

NG can also be cracked using passive solar power to produce hydrogen and carbon black.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me that natural gas is a good interim solution. I have only seen this loosely cited [been meaning to do the math myself], but it is generally claimed that CH4 only emits about half the CO2 as does coal and other fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Obviously it is the cleanest fossil-fuel option wrt pollution in general - this means less economic impact on car companies trying to meet emission standards. We in the US are now, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "swimming in natural gas". And this can't be outsourced!

NG can also be cracked using passive solar power to produce hydrogen and carbon black.

I like the idea of natural gas for semi trucks. The gas fields are typically located in the country - where the truck stops are typically located - and truck stops are typically better capitalized and have adequate space for new equipment. Further, the conversion is affordable and the trucks have adequate storage space. The trucks are also highly regulated and routinely inspected. IMO - it's a good fit.

 

[daveb]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since when did Boondocks become an authority.

 

[Al68]

I like the idea of natural gas for semi trucks. The gas fields are typically located in the country - where the truck stops are typically located - and truck stops are typically better capitalized and have adequate space for new equipment. Further, the conversion is affordable and the trucks have adequate storage space. The trucks are also highly regulated and routinely inspected. IMO - it's a good fit.

I can't seem to find a source online about converting a diesel to use natural gas. I'm no expert, but isn't the power/torque/durability requirements to haul 80,000 pounds what precludes the use of gasoline/spark ignition engines? Wouldn't it similarly preclude the use of natural gas engines as a practical matter?

I'm just asking here, not making any claims. This isn't exactly my area of expertise.

 

[WhoWee]

I thought this might be worth mentioning as well.
http://www.cumminswestport.com/fuels/hcng.php

"HCNG is a blend of natural gas and hydrogen. Tests show that a blend of approximately 20% hydrogen and 80% CNG by volume can reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 30 to 50% without affecting the performance and efficiency of a natural gas engine."

 

[Ryumast3r]

I can't seem to find a source online about converting a diesel to use natural gas. I'm no expert, but isn't the power/torque/durability requirements to haul 80,000 pounds what precludes the use of gasoline/spark ignition engines? Wouldn't it similarly preclude the use of natural gas engines as a practical matter?

I'm just asking here, not making any claims. This isn't exactly my area of expertise.

Natural Gas doesn't give the "oomph" that diesel does (or even gasoline IIRC), however, this can be solved by getting a bit of a bigger piston, or more turbos. It results in a little more emission NG-wise, but still less than Diesel or Gasoline.

My local university (U. of Utah, which is a very mountainous campus and buses typically have a hard time going uphill) has started to convert to NG buses, and the only problem they run into is they need to fit them with a slightly bigger engine in order to carry passengers up the hills, but are still noticeably cleaner.

You are correct that NG doesn't give the power, but the sheer amount of natural gas in the U.S. (and the world, for that matter) means that using a little bit more per capita wouldn't be much of a problem (while we find other ways of powering vehicles/etc).

 

[Al68]

Natural Gas doesn't give the "oomph" that diesel does (or even gasoline IIRC), however, this can be solved by getting a bit of a bigger piston, or more turbos. It results in a little more emission NG-wise, but still less than Diesel or Gasoline.

My local university (U. of Utah, which is a very mountainous campus and buses typically have a hard time going uphill) has started to convert to NG buses, and the only problem they run into is they need to fit them with a slightly bigger engine in order to carry passengers up the hills, but are still noticeably cleaner.

You are correct that NG doesn't give the power, but the sheer amount of natural gas in the U.S. (and the world, for that matter) means that using a little bit more per capita wouldn't be much of a problem (while we find other ways of powering vehicles/etc).

I can see how it could work for buses, but I was referring to 80,000 lb tractor trailers that already must use large turbo diesel engines and have to creep up hills. Buses are lightweight in comparison.

It just seems like the dramatically lower power would be much harder to make up for in a heavy truck. Especially assuming that engine makers already struggle to get the greatest power and fuel mileage possible for given weight and size limitations.

Durability is the other issue. Heavy duty truck engines are expected to last millions of miles. Using a spark-fired engine and larger pistons and more turbos doesn't seem very compatible with durability either, all else being equal. Of course that, too, could be made up for by spending more money on materials and engine building.

It just seems like too much to have to make up for with heavy trucks, as a practical matter. I could easily be wrong, but getting a natural gas engine to come close to the power/size/weight/cost/durability requirements needed seems like a difficult task to me.

 

[BobG]

I can see how it could work for buses, but I was referring to 80,000 lb tractor trailers that already must use large turbo diesel engines and have to creep up hills. Buses are lightweight in comparison.

It just seems like the dramatically lower power would be much harder to make up for in a heavy truck. Especially assuming that engine makers already struggle to get the greatest power and fuel mileage possible for given weight and size limitations.

Durability is the other issue. Heavy duty truck engines are expected to last millions of miles. Using a spark-fired engine and larger pistons and more turbos doesn't seem very compatible with durability either, all else being equal. Of course that, too, could be made up for by spending more money on materials and engine building.

It just seems like too much to have to make up for with heavy trucks, as a practical matter. I could easily be wrong, but getting a natural gas engine to come close to the power/size/weight/cost/durability requirements needed seems like a difficult task to me.

It's not a linear relationship, since the lower energy density of a fuel can be compensated for with a higher compression ratio. And the high compression ratios increase the efficiency with higher temperatures and a greater expansion ratio.

But, you're getting down there with natural gas. Ethanol and methanol have lower energy densities, but natural gas is pretty low.

 

[Ryumast3r]

I can see how it could work for buses, but I was referring to 80,000 lb tractor trailers that already must use large turbo diesel engines and have to creep up hills. Buses are lightweight in comparison.

It just seems like the dramatically lower power would be much harder to make up for in a heavy truck. Especially assuming that engine makers already struggle to get the greatest power and fuel mileage possible for given weight and size limitations.

Durability is the other issue. Heavy duty truck engines are expected to last millions of miles. Using a spark-fired engine and larger pistons and more turbos doesn't seem very compatible with durability either, all else being equal. Of course that, too, could be made up for by spending more money on materials and engine building.

It just seems like too much to have to make up for with heavy trucks, as a practical matter. I could easily be wrong, but getting a natural gas engine to come close to the power/size/weight/cost/durability requirements needed seems like a difficult task to me.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I thought you meant the smaller ones. My bad.

I am not an expert by any means on the intricacies of diesel vs N.G., and considering the size limitations on the trucks themselves, I don't know how they'd solve that problem.

HOWEVER, getting almost every other gas-consuming car and bus off the road and only using diesel for trains and large tractor-trailers would go a long way in helping reduce oil usage. Other than that, I personally have no idea how you'd replace diesel with NG in those trucks (though I'm sure someone smarter than me could see a way to do it... though I imagine it'd be very difficult).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know about using NG in heavy trucks, but the points made are the very reasons why biodiesel is the only viable option for some transportation needs. At about 118.3 KBTUs per gallon, biodiesel [B100] has only slightly less energy per gallon than diesel no 2 - 129.5 KBTU per gallon.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/BTU_Content_Final_Oct2005.pdf

Having superior lubricity, BD can yield nearly the same effective energy output as regular diesel.

However, solar cracking of NG for hydrogen may also provide a viable fuel option for trucking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll believe in wind and solar when President Obama convinces Iran they are a better choice than nuclear power.

Okay, I have to call you on that one. Your position on energy policies depends on Ahmadinejad's position?

Until we have adequate supply at competitively priced alternatives - drill baby drill, frac baby frac, and squeeze (or whatever they do to the) sands - IMO.

Some solar power companies expect to reach price equity very soon. It seems to be on a region by region basis now.

A cleantech Senior Research Analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co, Ahmar Zaman, has said that he believes solar power will reach grid parity at a retail level in some markets as early as next year.

These markets include Italy and Hawaii, where the price of electricity is fairly high, and there is a lot of sunshine.

Zaman explains that in 2007, the cost of residential solar power was around $8 to $10 a watt. In 2011, solar systems can be installed for $4 to $5 a watt...

In Southern California, for peak energy demand at peak electricity prices, solar is already at grid parity...

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/...ected-to-compete-with-coal-soon-analyst-says/

Is Solar PV Power Becoming Cost Competitive with Coal-Fired Electricity?
by Roy Joseph on 04/19/11
Source :- http://www.glgroup.com

Yes - in some markets, and some sunny areas, not everywhere. This answer relates to utility-grade solar installations as alternatives to new coal-fired plants, not to small rooftop systems.

Investor-owned utilities resist buying solar power since they can make more burning coal in depreciated generating plants. Canadian Solar, Inc., SunPower Corp.,, Fotowatio Renewable Ventures Inc., and Areva S.A. are building new utility-scale systems now and predicting 20% efficiency gains by 2020...

http://solarsyz.com/Blog.html?entry=is-solar-pv-power-becoming

 

[WhoWee]

Okay, I have to call you on that one. Your position on energy policies depends on Ahmadinejad's position?

It's sad isn't it?

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/8044750

"Iran's OPEC Governor Ali Khatibi said Monday the International Energy Agency's decision to release 60 million barrels of oil from emergency stocks was "a dangerous game" as caretaker Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi said Iran would continue to resist an OPEC output hike."

We need to be self-sufficient - IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

Some solar power companies expect to reach price equity very soon.

A solar power salesman says we should buy solar?! I'm convinced!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A solar power salesman says we should buy solar?! I'm convinced!

The fact is, at the rate prices are dropping, it makes no sense to buy solar right now.

We have a member who is currently working on the practical implementation of large-scale thin-film printed solar panels. This is being done at the commercial level.

Do you have information stating that something in the posted links is incorrect or are you just taking more cheap shots?

 

[talk2glenn]

Solar is not market competitive, or anywhere near price parity. The figures you quote are post-policy. Specifically, the Department of Energy spends approximately 20 times as much per generated industrial MW of solar as energy as per MW of coal energy. Despite that investment, new solar output costs 3 times as much per MW as new conventional capacity, and consumes at least 125 times as much acreage as new conventional plants, again per MW.

The space concern is a huge consideration for any potential developer in the United States. We have one of the most onerous land use permitting and environmental review policies in the world, if not the most onerous. No other state that I'm aware of will delay construction of new power plants for 16 months to consider the impact on a local squirrel that is otherwise doing just fine (not endangered or protected), until investor flight ultimately cancels the project.

The largest solar plant in the United States - SEGS - has an installed capacity of 300+ MW, but an average operating capacity of only 20% of that. The reason? Inefficiency and costs. There are no economies of scale in the production and delivery of concentrated power - they simply stop producing power at the point where subsidies dry up. In this case, PG&E is required to buy a given portion of its electricity from approved sources, like solar.

Solar Two was an experimental plant built in 1996 by a DOE capital grant, with 3 years of guaranteed operating subsidies to expire in 1999 (and the goal of continued competitive operation, subsidy-free, in 1999). The day subsidies expired the plant closed.

Sarnia solar power plant in Canada, the worlds largest PV facility, has a guaranteed purchase contract from the Canadian government for 44 cents per KWh. Without that guarantee, the facility never would have opened.

The list goes on. There is no competitive demand for new solar capacity (there is sufficient conventional capacity) - the market is driven entirely by public rent seeking.

 

[Ryumast3r]

For all the talk about solar and wind, why don't we add Geothermal, or OTEC to the mix as well?


Or, heaven forbid, nuclear.

 

[mheslep]

Solar is not market competitive, or anywhere near price parity. ...

Depending on location I disagree, but that aside, how do you price the externalities of fossile fuel based electric power? Forget about CO2 for the moment, just consider particulate matter, SOX, mercury, radioactivity, etc, etc emissions fromhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/" , then there's an increase in asthma, etc. How does one price those?

 

[turbo]

Depending on location I disagree, but that aside, how do you price the externalities of fossile fuel based electric power? Forget about CO2 for the moment, just consider particulate matter, SOX, mercury, radioactivity, etc, etc emissions fromhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/" , then there's an increase in asthma, etc. How does one price those?

There's the rub. There are all kinds of negative effects of burning dirty fossil fuels, and the power companies never have to pay for mitigation. I was a consultant to companies that burn coal for power, and unless they make large changes in their power systems, they never have to pay for scrubbers and other environmental upgrades. They can get around this by making regular incremental changes in equipment, so they never trigger the 'big-project" requirement for installing environmental controls.

Maine has no coal-fired power plants, but we are downwind from huge midwest coal-fired plants. As a result, we have acidic lakes and rivers, mercury bio-accumulating in fish (dangerous for children and women of child-bearing age to eat, according to the state Fish and Wildlife Department), cadmium bio-accumulating in deer and moose (F&W says don't eat the livers), and rolling ozone alerts nearly all summer long. The incidence of asthma in Maine is on a steady increase, too. The costs of using coal and other dirty fossil fuels are very high, and they are being borne by all of us down-wind of the plants. Men, women, children, wildlife...

 

[WhoWee]

We have a member who is currently working on the practical implementation of large-scale thin-film printed solar panels. This is being done at the commercial level.

Is this being discussed in a particular thread?

 

[turbo]

Is this being discussed in a particular thread?

Good question. I'd like to follow that.