The heat is on. Fox News special review

[wacki]

Michael Davis told me to post a trip report so here it is.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised to see they said global warming was happening. They also stated stats saying 80% of americans polled believed it was happening so I was happy about that. They interviewed glacial scientists, mentioned the vostok ice cores (although very briefly and basically told us nothing about them), ripped apart GE's ecomagination (and similar advertisements) and the Kyoto treaty which was also good. They also mentioned climate change causing hurricanes, draughts, floods, etc and how the temp of the earth has risen. Then it went all down hill.

When talking about the fight for global warming they thought it was important enough to spend over 20 minutes (guestimating) interviewing the director of "the day after tomorrow" Linky and how he replaces the lightbulbs in his house with energy efficient bulbs. They also spent another 10 minutes or so interview the wife of Larry David from HBO’s "Curb your enthusiasm" and how she gave away her husbands hybrid at http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/. They interviewed random Hollywood figures, how 8 year old kids at a "global warming camp" learn to power little plastic fans with solar cells, a racecar driver that loves to race off of ethanol, and a CEO of a motor company using wonderful buzzwords like "we have scientists working not only on the next generation of fuel cells but the generation after that".

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
2) ITER and how it’s been in gridlock for 19 years and 358 days.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER
5) Why hybrids don’t save energy due to increased construction energy costs
6) Why hydrogen in itself isn’t going to help global warming because we still need to use fossil fuels to create it.
7) Offshore wind turbines
8) ocean thermal energy conversion
9) Fuel cells Achilles heel = not enough platinum to go around
10) severe lack of physicists in this country
11) interview any Nobel laureate
12) interview any physicist
13) carbon sequestration
14) interview Jerry M. Melillo
15) Mention C12/C14 data
16) This image: http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2084/3way8fp.png
17) peak oil
18) how shale oil will release massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere

I could go on and on and on….

Seriously, what is the point of having the show? They spent more time interviewing celebrities than scientists. All they had to do is watch the PBS/Edward Norton Strange Days series and Richard Smalley’s video and plagiarize. The only person on the show that said "come up with alternative ways to make energy" was a little boy at "energy camp". What a joke.

Here, let me help you FoxNews:
http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_O...31101_300k.wmv
http://smalley.rice.edu/
www.pbs.org/strangedays


PS. Feel free to e-mail a link of this post to fox news. That used to be my favorite news station and now I think it’s a joke.

Atleast it seemed like their hearts were in the right place. Still, the show probably motivated maybe 2 people and left everyone in the dark about what our energy needs really will be in the future.

wacki,

Thank you. How do we get our folks in DC to do anything except rattle on and on? They each have their agendas and special interest debts.

If they won't pay any attention to science, who will they listen to?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a mediocre plan.

Let's start with one basic idea.

We will never run out of gas.

Oh, of course, the amount of gas in the world is finite, for sure. No doubting that. But we won't run out. The price will only get higher and higher.

Now, as the price of gas grows higher as the supplies run lower, demand for alternative energy skyrockets, and with demand comes massive private r+d investments by companies with a massive incentive to come up with an alternative fuel.

Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it? People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

Oh...and by letting the private sector handle it, you also don't have one other irritating problem. See, when you tax gas, you aren't just taxing gas. You are taxing EVVVVVERYTHING. Guess who that hurts the most. It's not the rich.

Will

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a mediocre plan.

Let's start with one basic idea.

We will never run out of gas.

Oh, of course, the amount of gas in the world is finite, for sure. No doubting that. But we won't run out. The price will only get higher and higher.

Now, as the price of gas grows higher as the supplies run lower, demand for alternative energy skyrockets, and with demand comes massive private r+d investments by companies with a massive incentive to come up with an alternative fuel.

Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it? People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

Oh...and by letting the private sector handle it, you also don't have one other irritating problem. See, when you tax gas, you aren't just taxing gas. You are taxing EVVVVVERYTHING. Guess who that hurts the most. It's not the rich.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

This is stupid wishful thinking. God I really hate people so committed to an idea that it blinds them to reality. I don't want us to start working on this problem when oil is $200 per barrel and the economy is [censored] and famine returns to many parts of the globe.

That's not soon enough and that's not good enough, and if you're happy with that because it fits your view of how the world should work then you're an idiot and deserve the chaos for which you yearn.

I want this problem solved now. Barring that as soon as possible, and I don't care if government or private industry finances the R&D and capital investment.

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

Also, FYI to the OP, if you don't know already, Smalley died a couple days back. So that sucks.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want us to start working on this problem when oil is $200 per barrel and the economy is [censored] and famine returns to many parts of the globe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "us"? If *you* want to start working on it, get to work. Lots of other people have already started, what are you waiting on?

[ QUOTE ]
I want this problem solved now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, go for it.


[ QUOTE ]
All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people are doing something. You aren't. What are you complaining about? That you can't force other people to do work that you personally want done?

[CORed]

I'm not opposed to the idea of government funded R&D for energy, but I don't really think that technology is the primary barrier to adopting alternative energy. We know how to build wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, solar thermal energy generators, nuclear fission reactors and we have apretty good idea how to do ocean thermal energy. We also know how to make fuel cells. Why aren't we using these (except nuclear fission) to any significant degree? One very simple reason: Fossil fuel is cheaper. I submit that the barriers to using renewable energy are more economic than technological. That is going to change in the next few decades (mayber soon).

Wacki is absolutely right about hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is one possible means of energy storage and transport. It may not even be the best means. The cheapest way to make hydrogen right now is from fossil fuels. Hydrogen can also be made by electolyzing water, with electricity coming from renewable sources or nuclear energy (fission or fusion, assuming we ever make fusion work). The fuel cell problem is not necessarily a show stopper. Hydrogen can also be burned. A car with a hydrogen-burning internal combustion engine may not be as efficient as a fuel cell car, but it will work, and produces minimal pollution (some NOx), and will likely be much cheaper to manufacture than a fuel cell car.

I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain but potentially huge, than to refining existing, but currently non-cost-effective technologies. I think the private sector will work the kinks out of renewable energy, once the price of fossil fuels becomes high enough to make it profitable. I also think the conversion from fossil fuel to renewables may happen much faster than many people imagine, once the economic factors favor it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain

[/ QUOTE ]

Most physicists think ITER is very low risk. It just requires time and money. Money isn't an issue, it's waiting the 20 years it takes to build and calibrate one of these things that is the problem. So, nobody wants to put forth the effort when your term in office is only 4 years and patents don't last that long.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

Will

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. The smalley's video or pdf transcript explains why. Energy supplies decreasing, energy demands increasing, china comming online, and all of our current technologies simply aren't scalable or able to provide cheap energy. Fuel cell problem = platinum. All of this has been covered before in much greater detail.