Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I can agree with that, which is why shutting down domestic production and spending billions of tax payer dollars on something that might work, is a bad idea.
    I wouldn't support shutting down the domestic production until such point that said technology would be a vialbe alternative not just to domestic production but foreign purchasing as well. If all it does is keep us from drilling domestically that does nothing with regards to cost, nor national security, as we're still over a barrel (pun intended) of the foriegn entities that sale the stuff. It would only be till some point after that in which I'd supporting the shut down of domestic production. And even then, frankly, I wouldn't fully support shutting down domestic production but rather lessening it in more high risk locations and having the government buy the production as essentially reserves as emergency backup in case of some kind of significant issue in the new line of production occurs.

  2. #12
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,343

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I wouldn't support shutting down the domestic production until such point that said technology would be a vialbe alternative not just to domestic production but foreign purchasing as well. If all it does is keep us from drilling domestically that does nothing with regards to cost, nor national security, as we're still over a barrel (pun intended) of the foriegn entities that sale the stuff. It would only be till some point after that in which I'd supporting the shut down of domestic production. And even then, frankly, I wouldn't fully support shutting down domestic production but rather lessening it in more high risk locations and having the government buy the production as essentially reserves as emergency backup in case of some kind of significant issue in the new line of production occurs.
    I say we let good 'ol free market competition make the call.

    If these alternative energy ideas are so wonderful, it shouldn't be hard to find investors, get it working, prove that it's better and sell it to the American people.

    Halting domestic oil production and using a substandard energy source isn't the answer, IMO. In the long run, I think that would be self defeating.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I say we let good 'ol free market competition make the call.
    Since you didn't address it before, I'll refer you back to my previous comment where reality is we don't have a free market currently when it comes to energy research.

    If these alternative energy ideas are so wonderful, it shouldn't be hard to find investors, get it working, prove that it's better and sell it to the American people.
    You still haven't answered if yes or no, the reliance on foreign entities for our main source of power is a national security issue or not.

    Second, see above regarding investors.

    Halting domestic oil production and using a substandard energy source isn't the answer, IMO. In the long run, I think that would be self defeating.
    Wait...so oil is a substandard energy source? So because of that we must stick to Oil?

    That makes no sense.

  4. #14
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,343

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Since you didn't address it before, I'll refer you back to my previous comment where reality is we don't have a free market currently when it comes to energy research.
    I agree with that and that's why I oppose government sticking it's finger into that pie.



    You still haven't answered if yes or no, the reliance on foreign entities for our main source of power is a national security issue or not.

    Second, see above regarding investors.
    I already said that I agree that it is. Do I have to specifically say, "yes"?



    Wait...so oil is a substandard energy source? So because of that we must stick to Oil?

    That makes no sense.
    Of course it makes no sense, because it's not what I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I agree with that and that's why I oppose government sticking it's finger into that pie.
    And I agree with your premise, but if my memory serves you don't go into the Jindal threads some time ago or other similar threads where...once money is budgeted...republicans get earmarks and projects for their states and act all upset.

    That's essentially what I'm saying here. If we're already going to have money allocated to research in energy, why not steer it towards energy research that will utilize the current infastructure?

    I already said that I agree that it is. Do I have to specifically say, "yes"?
    Sorry, must've missed that.

    Then if you agree, would spending money towards national security not be a legitimate function?

    Of course it makes no sense, because it's not what I said.
    I'm thinking we're having issue's understanding what the other is saying here...

    Do you think I'm arguing for spending significant money in research to push solar/wind/other "alternative" energy sources?

    My comments is inregards to research in creating essentiall artificial or synthetic crude oil, essentially finding an alternative means of production. Unless you mean source as the MEANS of getting the energy not the type of energy. And if that's the case, you're suggest that alternative means of crude oil are "substandard" methods...in which case, by supporting things like deep water drilling you'd be being somewhat counter-intuitive because deep water drilling is a "substandard" procedure compared to standard drilling endevours.

    My suggestion is to remain on the path of using our current infastructure that utilizes crude oils as its base energy source, but simply finding alternative means of production in such a way that it is safer, renewable, and can account for all of our domestic oil needs for the foreseeable future rather than a small percentage. Even if you don't believe we're at "peak" oil, pure science says there is a finite amount available within the earth and eventually we will reach that finite amount. Add to that fact the situation we're in where we only can access the oil reserves in our portion of the world which is a fraction of the total land available. Eventually, in some fashion, we are going to need to look for alternative means of energy production and potentially finding one that can make energy 100% domestic would be significantly beneficial to national security and the economy.

  6. #16
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,343

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And I agree with your premise, but if my memory serves you don't go into the Jindal threads some time ago or other similar threads where...once money is budgeted...republicans get earmarks and projects for their states and act all upset.

    That's essentially what I'm saying here. If we're already going to have money allocated to research in energy, why not steer it towards energy research that will utilize the current infastructure?
    The funds should be redirected, IMO. And, the government get out of a business that is best served by the private sector.



    Sorry, must've missed that.

    Then if you agree, would spending money towards national security not be a legitimate function?
    I better--and cheaper--solution would to stop stifling domestic oil production.



    I'm thinking we're having issue's understanding what the other is saying here...

    Do you think I'm arguing for spending significant money in research to push solar/wind/other "alternative" energy sources?
    I don't think you're proposing it, but I'm not sure that you're opposing, it either.

    My comments is inregards to research in creating essentiall artificial or synthetic crude oil, essentially finding an alternative means of production. Unless you mean source as the MEANS of getting the energy not the type of energy. And if that's the case, you're suggest that alternative means of crude oil are "substandard" methods...in which case, by supporting things like deep water drilling you'd be being somewhat counter-intuitive because deep water drilling is a "substandard" procedure compared to standard drilling endevours.
    When I say, "substandard", sources, I'm talking about the actual energy efficiency of the fuel material, itself. For instance, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethonal to produce the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. Ethonal also costs more. Two things that make it a substandard fuel, IMO.

    My suggestion is to remain on the path of using our current infastructure that utilizes crude oils as its base energy source, but simply finding alternative means of production in such a way that it is safer, renewable, and can account for all of our domestic oil needs for the foreseeable future rather than a small percentage. Even if you don't believe we're at "peak" oil, pure science says there is a finite amount available within the earth and eventually we will reach that finite amount. Add to that fact the situation we're in where we only can access the oil reserves in our portion of the world which is a fraction of the total land available. Eventually, in some fashion, we are going to need to look for alternative means of energy production and potentially finding one that can make energy 100% domestic would be significantly beneficial to national security and the economy.
    That's great. Let's take the politicians out of the equation and leave it up to market to decide what works.

    What we have now, is a political agenda that is pressuring the market in a direction that 1) it doesn't want to go in and 2) producing a product that may not work. And, if the whole alternative energy idea flops, then what? Let's go forward, when we're sure we're ready to go forward, so we can insure that we don't have to go backwards, just to keep people from starving to death.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #17
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The funds should be redirected, IMO. And, the government get out of a business that is best served by the private sector.
    Wonderful in theory. However, as I said, I'm speaking in realistic not idealistic terms in this thread. Its unreasonable to assume that we will go from however much we spend in incentives or grants for energy research to zero immedietely. That's as unrealistic as the plan often attributed to Ron Paul that's "Lets get rid of the Dept. of Education" as some kind of immediete action.

    I better--and cheaper--solution would to stop stifling domestic oil production.
    A better, cheaper, short term solution. I'm not arguing the whole "peak oil" thing or anything like that, its indisputable that oil is a finite resource taking significant amount of time to create itself within the earth and as such is not "renewable" in a sense that once its gone its going to be back in a year. Additionally, our reserves are not enough that we could remove ourselves from all international imports for the next 50 years.

    I don't think you're proposing it, but I'm not sure that you're opposing, it either.
    Well, no...I'm not. Because its not the topic of this thread so I'm actually trying to stick to what its speaking about. Going on a tangent ranting against subsidizing of alternative energy sources with no draw back to how it applies to this topic would be derailing.

    When I say, "substandard", sources, I'm talking about the actual energy efficiency of the fuel material, itself. For instance, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethonal to produce the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. Ethonal also costs more. Two things that make it a substandard fuel, IMO.
    However, the technology being talked about in this thread isn't creating ethanol. Its talking about standard crude oil, simply produced in an alternative method.

    That's great. Let's take the politicians out of the equation and leave it up to market to decide what works.
    Wonderful, I get you completely in ideological land.

    As I've said, repeatedly, I'm dealing with reality. Its as unreasonable to assume that we're just going to up and immedietely withdraw every penny the government has budgeted towards scientific research into alternative energy as to suggest we'd pull out of Afghanistan immedietely, shut down the department of education as a whole immedietely, or end social security immedietely. **** doesn't happen that way in the real world.

    What we have now, is a political agenda that is pressuring the market in a direction that 1) it doesn't want to go in and 2) producing a product that may not work. And, if the whole alternative energy idea flops, then what? Let's go forward, when we're sure we're ready to go forward, so we can insure that we don't have to go backwards, just to keep people from starving to death.
    Right now, the American public and the government is set upon the notion of the government persuing alternative means of energy. If you have an ideological magic wand you can wave, be my guest. If you want to talk about this in an ideological sense revolving around all alternative bits of energy, I'd be happy to talk to you about it in another thread.

    In this thread however I'm dealing with the topic, which is not an "alternative" energy source but rather an "alternative" means of producing our CURRENT energy source. I'm also going to be dealing with reality of the government in this current political climate. If we're going to be spending money on such research...a practice that is long standing in the country and one that, realistically, is not going to completely and utterly VANISH immedietely...then my suggestion is we spend it in focusing on technology that best utilizes our current infastructure, would therefore have a positive effect on our economy in a quicker time, and would provide a means of energy independence giving us better national security.

    Continuing our CURRENT method continues to force us to be stuck at the hands of countries who do not have our best interest in mind. I would much rather attempt to spur technology that would allow us in say, 10 years time, to become dependent on no other country for energy for the next 50 years or longer than than simply "going forward" with what we have, which is an unstable, unsecure situation where even with reduced regulations on drilling internally our problems won't significantly change in a long term scale.

  8. #18
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,343

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Wonderful in theory. However, as I said, I'm speaking in realistic not idealistic terms in this thread. Its unreasonable to assume that we will go from however much we spend in incentives or grants for energy research to zero immedietely. That's as unrealistic as the plan often attributed to Ron Paul that's "Lets get rid of the Dept. of Education" as some kind of immediete action.
    I don't have a problem with minor incentives and grants, but I do oppose massive government investment in these projects. I certainly oppose government manipulation of energy comodities, so as to promote alternat energy projects. That's creating a false market and will have dire consequences when the bubble bursts.



    A better, cheaper, short term solution. I'm not arguing the whole "peak oil" thing or anything like that, its indisputable that oil is a finite resource taking significant amount of time to create itself within the earth and as such is not "renewable" in a sense that once its gone its going to be back in a year. Additionally, our reserves are not enough that we could remove ourselves from all international imports for the next 50 years.
    Finite, yes, but we're not going to run out oil next week. If the alternate fuel proponents really wanted to promote their agenda, they would be pushing to deplete oil reserves even faster.

    Also, I think there's a significant amount of hypocrisy in the alternative energy crowd. The United States has some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world, but no one is pushing a transition to natural gas. It's far more viable than oil crappin' bacteria.


    However, the technology being talked about in this thread isn't creating ethanol. Its talking about standard crude oil, simply produced in an alternative method.
    But, is it proven? How realistic is it, that the oil crappers can produce enough oil to justify the cost? Is it proven? What's going to happen when a blight kills all the bacteria, since bacteria is a living organism, afterall.



    Wonderful, I get you completely in ideological land.

    As I've said, repeatedly, I'm dealing with reality. Its as unreasonable to assume that we're just going to up and immedietely withdraw every penny the government has budgeted towards scientific research into alternative energy as to suggest we'd pull out of Afghanistan immedietely, shut down the department of education as a whole immedietely, or end social security immedietely. **** doesn't happen that way in the real world.
    Every penny? No, nor should we. However, I think we need to close the cash spigget quite a bit.



    Right now, the American public and the government is set upon the notion of the government persuing alternative means of energy. If you have an ideological magic wand you can wave, be my guest. If you want to talk about this in an ideological sense revolving around all alternative bits of energy, I'd be happy to talk to you about it in another thread.

    In this thread however I'm dealing with the topic, which is not an "alternative" energy source but rather an "alternative" means of producing our CURRENT energy source. I'm also going to be dealing with reality of the government in this current political climate. If we're going to be spending money on such research...a practice that is long standing in the country and one that, realistically, is not going to completely and utterly VANISH immedietely...then my suggestion is we spend it in focusing on technology that best utilizes our current infastructure, would therefore have a positive effect on our economy in a quicker time, and would provide a means of energy independence giving us better national security.

    Continuing our CURRENT method continues to force us to be stuck at the hands of countries who do not have our best interest in mind. I would much rather attempt to spur technology that would allow us in say, 10 years time, to become dependent on no other country for energy for the next 50 years or longer than than simply "going forward" with what we have, which is an unstable, unsecure situation where even with reduced regulations on drilling internally our problems won't significantly change in a long term scale.
    You can play semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, what's being proposed is a new energy idea that's yet to be proven.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't have a problem with minor incentives and grants, but I do oppose massive government investment in these projects. I certainly oppose government manipulation of energy comodities, so as to promote alternat energy projects. That's creating a false market and will have dire consequences when the bubble bursts.
    I'm not going to the same length as Dan with suggesting we need a new "Manhattan project". I am simply saying that if we're going to be giving minor incentives and grants to researches of alternative energy, I would rather the majority of that go into technologies creating new ways to produce energy that uses our current infastructure rather than ones that would need a radical change.

    Finite, yes, but we're not going to run out oil next week. If the alternate fuel proponents really wanted to promote their agenda, they would be pushing to deplete oil reserves even faster.
    I'm not suggesting we're going to run out next week. I am suggesting that if we used enough of our resources to make 100% of our oil in house that it would not last at a reasonable price for the next 50 years.

    Also, I think there's a significant amount of hypocrisy in the alternative energy crowd. The United States has some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world, but no one is pushing a transition to natural gas. It's far more viable than oil crappin' bacteria.
    Wonderful, you think they're hypocrites. I don't rightly care. Natural gas is wonderful, it would still take a significant change in our current infastructure to harness it on a level equal to gasoline...and even then we'd STILL need oil. Which is why I'm suggesting "oil crappin' bacteria" and other alternative ways to produce gasoline is a far more intelligent use of the governments money IF its going to be spending it.

    But, is it proven? How realistic is it, that the oil crappers can produce enough oil to justify the cost? Is it proven? What's going to happen when a blight kills all the bacteria, since bacteria is a living organism, afterall.
    Its new technology, so proven in the sense you're talking about? No. If it was, there'd be no reason to spur and push for research to occur.

    As far as your hypothetical blight, something that "can" happen doesn't equal will happen. Additionally its why I'd suggest not necessarily stopping production of oil in other ways, nor even continuing with private sector research into other alternatives for it. But this "blight" scenario is as likely and legitiamte as me suggesting that the peak oil believers are true and we find out there's only a fraction of the oil out there as possible.

    Every penny? No, nor should we. However, I think we need to close the cash spigget quite a bit.
    Agreed.

    You can play semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, what's being proposed is a new energy idea that's yet to be proven.
    No, its a new means of production of the same old energy.

  10. #20
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,343

    Re: Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'm not going to the same length as Dan with suggesting we need a new "Manhattan project". I am simply saying that if we're going to be giving minor incentives and grants to researches of alternative energy, I would rather the majority of that go into technologies creating new ways to produce energy that uses our current infastructure rather than ones that would need a radical change.
    I don't have a problem with that, either. But, after someone has developed what he thinks is a viable replacement for petroleum, or a viable replacement for the current petroleum producing systems, he should take his idea, sell it to some investors and take their chances in the market, just like everyone else. I think that an industry, that has to suck from the government tit to survive is good for the country. If it can't stand on it's own, then it should fail.



    I'm not suggesting we're going to run out next week. I am suggesting that if we used enough of our resources to make 100% of our oil in house that it would not last at a reasonable price for the next 50 years.
    That's why we need to look at natural gas, oil, wind, solar and the bug crap thing, all at the same time and use them simultaneously. Get away from the school of thought that says we need to stop using oil, all together.



    Wonderful, you think they're hypocrites. I don't rightly care. Natural gas is wonderful, it would still take a significant change in our current infastructure to harness it on a level equal to gasoline...and even then we'd STILL need oil. Which is why I'm suggesting "oil crappin' bacteria" and other alternative ways to produce gasoline is a far more intelligent use of the governments money IF its going to be spending it.
    It's another one of those market things. If there is a demand, the infrastructure transition would pay for itself.



    Its new technology, so proven in the sense you're talking about? No. If it was, there'd be no reason to spur and push for research to occur.
    If it were such a great idea, it wouldn't need to be spurred. If it needs that much spurring, then it might be a viable source.

    As far as your hypothetical blight, something that "can" happen doesn't equal will happen. Additionally its why I'd suggest not necessarily stopping production of oil in other ways, nor even continuing with private sector research into other alternatives for it. But this "blight" scenario is as likely and legitiamte as me suggesting that the peak oil believers are true and we find out there's only a fraction of the oil out there as possible.
    But, if it's possible, it must be taken into consideration. It would be foolish not to, IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •