Putting it together into a comprehensive plan

Getting to the next level must mean a comprehensive plan for domestic energy security.  It must be politically acceptable, or it won't achieve the goal.

So, I have tried to cobble together a plan that could satisfy people on all sides of the political spectrum.  Or so I think.  It could satisfy those who would prefer to end dependence upon fossil fuels on the account of its alleged deleterious effects on climate.  It could satisfy those who are concerned about national security.  It could also mean a new industry that could provide jobs for millions.

So, what's it all about?

First, the liquid fuels problem needs to be solved.  In order to do this, a substitute for the current system must be found.  It must be cost competitive with current systems and it must be capable of replacing the current system.  Such a system may look like something I wrote about previously.  It would look something like a Ford HySeries vehicle that would be a hybrid of fuel cells and batteries.

Obtaining the hydrogen fuel could come from pyrolysis of switchgrass.  Looking this up, I found a company in Canada that does something similar.  Dynamotive produces drop-in biofuels from biomass.  As opposed to do drop-in fuels for the current system, you could just make biomethanol ( one of their byproducts to their process ) and use this to make biohydrogen at the point of sale.  The biohydrogen can be obtained from reforming the biomethanol at the point of sale.  Therefore, obtaining the necessary hydrogen need not be the obstacle it is often portrayed to be.  Devices that can do the reforming of hydrocarbons for hydrogen already exist and are small enough to be put on a vehicle and demonstrated.

Switchgrass can grow on marginal farmlands and does not need to consume food supplies, as the current system does with bioethanol.  The potential exists to produce all the liquid fuels we need from this source of fuel.

Switchgrass made into biofuels can be carbon negative.  Fuel cells produce no carbon emissions.  Thus, the entire process is carbon negative and has the added benefit of improving soils while sequestering carbon.

The main barrier remaining is the cost of making such a vehicle.  You can lower the price of fuel cells by obtaining platinum for the low temperature catalysts from asteroids.

In turn, space travel costs have to come down.  There are those working on that problem, which can be solved, in my opinion.

Coaster 18, Don't reflect concentrated sunlight

I've come to the conclusion that reflected the concentrated light may not work, especially if the light is rather intense.  It may burn or melt the mirrors.  Instead of doing that, the next idea is to reflect the sunlight to the concentration dish.  This may require one or more mirrors to be placed at some point in space ahead of the dish.

These mirrors will pivot as needed to keep the sunlight focused upon the dish.

The rest of the setup will be like a concentrated sunlight dish as they are now made, except that electricity will not be made, but heating a reaction mass instead.

It is now a matter of optimizing the size of the mirrors so as to make the amount of energy needed to achieve the goal of an ISP comparable to a nuclear thermal rocket.

Update:

Rather than doing a completely new post, I'll add another quick thought here.  If an aluminum source can be found on the moon close to a perpetual light location at the poles, it may be feasible to make these things and get the fuel from them at close proximity.  In other words, most of what you need to launch these things could be on the moon at these polar locations.  Hydrogen from water and aluminum from the regolith.  You can make mirrors out of the aluminum.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the main mission would be to mine asteroids.

More on why Romney lost

Yesterday I was thinking that I would stop writing about politics.  Politics is just totally depressing and disagreeable in so many ways that I can't even begin to mention.

But it is necessary.  You must stay engaged.  It would be very easy to just go into a fetal position and start sucking your thumb.  That would be first instinct, but it would not solve any problems.  We've got big problems here.  Better stick with it, then.

Here's a number of reasons why Romney lost

1. Wrong kind of guy for the job.  We needed a business man who made things.  Our problem in the private sphere is in our financial system.  Romney is that kind of guy.  Who is conservative and in the private sphere and makes things?  That's the kind of candidate we needed.  Of those who were in the primaries, the only one who was a businessman and who made things was Herman Cain.  Cain did make pizzas--- not impressive sounding, but it is tangible.  Did Gingrich?  No.  Did Bachmann?  No.  Did Perry?  No.  Ron Paul?  No.  Huntsman was with some big corporations that made things--- Ford and Caterpillar.  Santorum?  No.  Pawlenty?  No.  Thus, there were only two candidates for the nomination that had experience making things.
2. Wrong strategy.  In the primaries, Romney used his money power to dispose of his rivals who gained an advantage over him.  While it is good to be able to raise money, it is not good strategy in the general election.  Romney could not get enough of a money advantage on Obama that was advantageous.  Money alone could not win this election.
3. Wrong tactics.  Especially towards the end by going soft.  Playing prevent defense when all that does is prevent you from winning.
4. Wrong religion.  There may have been a significant number of otherwise Republican voters who would not support a Mormon for President.  Romney could not overcome this.  He might have, but he had no effective way of doing this.
5. This leaves no candidates who could have been good enough.  That's because Cain was eliminated because of a scandal and Huntsman would not have been any better than Romney on the religion issue.  The Republicans needed a dark horse that could have passed muster.  They should have recognized this early on and began working on that problem before it was too late.
6. Too much reliance upon ideology.  Reagan didn't trust ideology.  If you want another Reagan, better change your blind faith in ideology.  Although Romney wasn't ideological per se, he eliminated at least one of his opponents on ideological grounds.  That would be Gingrich for his moon base proposal. Santorum was eliminated for the very reason of being ideological.  Anti-ideology is its own ideology.  Romney was more "moderate"--- which is just another form of ideology.  It doesn't get away from ideology.  It just changes its name.
7. He may have gotten sabotaged.  There are some reports out there that his own staff may have sabotaged him by making him believe that he was ahead.  This is conceivable to me.  That stuff, if true, would be a lot like what happened to Sarah Palin.  There were those who torpedoed her by having her go on television before she was ready.  If Romney got sabotaged, it was his own fault.  That goes back to his own innate abilities, which were not quite what they were hyped up to be.
8. Update:  Almost forgot this one:  Romney didn't defend Bush.  In 2008, that would have been impossible, but in 2012, not impossible.  Bush's jobs record was better than Obama's.  Should've mentioned that.  Bush's record in the Middle East was better than Obama's.  Should've have mentioned that too.  Overall, Bush's record was better.  Even Bush's so called bad record on civil liberties is better than Obama's.  People are conditioned by the media to believe Bush was not better.  But he was.  If you concede that Bush was not better than Obama, you may as well as given up in the first place.

Those are the reasons that I can think of.  There may be many more, but that's all for now.

They had better find a dark horse and find that dark horse soon.

People crying in their towels over this defeat

Grow up.

You were all watching polls all the time instead of digging up stuff like ORCA before the election when it might have made a difference.

Sticking your nose in Romney's ass wasn't going to work either.  Romney needed a pitchfork up his ass to make him adjust his strategy and tactics.  That's assuming he really wanted to win in the first place.

Watching your navel isn't going to get you a victory, assholes.

I'm not going to name names, but you should know who you are, assholes.

Watch this if you dare

Barnhardt's economic presentation is up.  You won't be comforted if you greatest love is money.  Your comfort may be in learning the truth, if that is what you wish.

The truth is a slippery thing, but that is no excuse for lying.  All Barnhardt is doing is providing truth to a delusional group of people.  Maybe you will want to hear it, or maybe you'd rather believe what the forked tongues are telling you.  It's your choice.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

About Limbaugh saying we've lost the country

How does that square with this analysis?

In other words, if our underlying assumption -- that there are 7 million votes outstanding -- is correct, then the African-American vote only increased by about 300,000 votes, or 0.2 percent, from 2008 to 2012. The Latino vote increased by a healthier 1.7 million votes, while the “other” category increased by about 470,000 votes.

This is nothing to sneeze at, but in terms of the effect on the electorate, it is dwarfed by the decline in the number of whites. Again, if our assumption about the total number of votes cast is correct, almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008. This isn’t readily explainable by demographic shifts either; although whites are declining as a share of the voting-age population, their raw numbers are not.

Put another way: The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.

It isn't demographic.  It is political.  How can you get these people to vote and for what?  Obama lost them and Romney failed to get them.

Update:

Did Romney fail because he is too much like the kind of people that were at the cause of the most recent recession?  Romney didn't make things.  He was an investment guy.  Wrong guy for the the job.  There's no way a guy like him was going to win this election.

Demographics is pre-ordained destiny--- so saith our Lords and Masters

Another observation about the post election spin: With respect to that this wasn't a loss due to demographics--- there's a different point of view:

The Republican Party is on the losing side in demographic battles. ... Republicans fought for the demographic victory of the Democrats and succeeded. With two parties united in fighting for the interests of the Democrat politicians it is not surprising that together the Republicans and Democrats delivered the Democrats a resounding demographic victory.  [ emphasis added]

Now Boehner is saying that an immigration deal is possible.  The GOP is a sell-out party.

Conclusion:  There's little reason to expect that the Republicans will offer meaningful resistance to the Democrats on immigration, or anything else for that matter.  It's all been pre-ordained from the start.  Run an election based upon the economy, but deliver action on immigration instead.  Immigration wasn't even an election issue.

Update:

The word that best describes the Republicans is Stooges.  How can you explain a candidate like Romney who ran on an issue that most people said they cared about and couldn't turn out the vote of people who may have voted for him?

Project ORCA and the like

Project ORCA was Team Romney's Get out the vote campaign. It was supposed to be a technologically based computerized program that would do the job. But it crashed. It was a big failure.

So this is the explanation for the reduced turnout. That and Obama's plan for just that kind of response from those who might vote against him. According to one article I read, Obama intended to depress those who were most likely to vote Republican.

Another story I read is that Romney really thought he was going to win. He was shell-shocked with the defeat.

This all points to a conclusion that Romney was a poor candidate.

I didn't like him anyway. But I have no influence. I argued against him in the primaries. What can you do if you have no influence?

FROM THE GRUMPY ECONOMIST, SOME PREDICTIONS

“We’re still sitting on a debt bomb. Remember 2004, when a few chicken-littles were saying ‘there is trouble brewing, there is a huge amount of debt (mortgages) that is in danger of defaulting, and the banks are stuffed with it?’ And how everyone made fun of them? That is our situation now, but it’s sovereign debt.”



Some things never change. Strong backs, weak minds.

Thoughts on the Road--- 11/8/12

• Under any possible scenario could Romney have won?- Was this loss inevitable? Obama lost nearly 10 million votes from 2008.  Most likely, those votes were still his for the taking, but he didn't take them.  Evidently, this loss was narrow only because Obama really didn't get his people revved up like the last time.
  
  On the other hand, Romney was supposed to have a bunch of enthusiastic GOP voters ready to crawl over broken glass to vote, yet he failed to match McCain's vote total.
  
  This is indicative of a serious problem.
• The wool is being pulled over our eyes   That's the feeling I get.  Limbaugh talks up Romney like he was the greatest candidate ever, but look at what he failed to accomplish.  Was he really that good?  Are the voters really that dumb? 
• GOP must totally oppose Obama's agenda or die. Harry Reid said he wouldn't have worked with Romney if he had won.  Turnabout is fair play.  Or even if  it isn't fair, since all is fair in love and war.  Politics is war by another name.  The Republicans should oppose the Democrats with everything that they've got.  For this may be the last time that they will be able to do it.  Use it or lose it.  You may lose it anyway, so why play a conservative game?  Play hard, and play to win.
  
  Romney went soft.   Nice guys finish last.
  
  Winning may get you some admirers.  Losing isn't popular.  Strong horse v. weak horse.  Be a strong horse, or forget about it.
  
• Stare down the fiscal cliff without blinking.
  
  We are being told to be afraid of the fiscal cliff.  That's to soften us up for a tax hike.  Don't fall for it.  Just say no to new taxes and make it stick.  Besides that, don't raise the debt ceiling no matter how much the Democrats whine.
  
  
  Republicans should play a very hard game because they have nothing to lose now.  They can't win against this guy, they may never win again.  The Democrats could run Pee Wee Herman and still beat the GOP.  A hard game may get them annihilated, but it also may lead to a victory.
  
  Now isn't the time to start playing it safe.  Romney did that and lost.
  

•  Michael Berry Show today---one caller from Texas A & M spoke about the Latino Voter from Mexico v Latino Voters from Cuba--- Romney won the Cuba votes, but not the Mexican.  Would Rubio have made a difference in Florida and elsewhere?  Or would the differences in the Latino voter not bring about that type of result as some suggested?
  I suggest that the GOP should remember that they are the White Man's Party.  They've been described this way by the Democrats, so why not play it for all its worth?
  
  I'd like to vote Republican.  But if the Republicans are going to act like Democrats, then I'm OUT.
• Amnesty wtf? I know Republicans would like to know how to win again, but if you are going to do that, just remember how well sucking up to blacks and hispanics has done for them in the past.  They'll never get that vote, so why bother trying?  You could try an experiment, if you must.  Get into a bidding war with the Democrats for their vote.  Find someone they can talk to, and try to get their support.  

GOP: Reform or Die

The GOP has failed us.  Miserably.

Shape up or ship out!

Update:

I'll add that if their answer is to compromise and to become just like the Democrats that they should join the Democrats because that's what they are.

Reaction to the reactions to the GOP loss

Trying to cobble together a post of the thoughts on this election.  It is all over the map.

•  Megan McCain said something to the effect that the GOP lost because too many are using the word  "RINO" to describe people like herself, I presume.  It is a funny way of rationalizing a loss.  Punish the guy who is more like you (Romney) than those who are using that word.
• I don't generally listen to a local talk show ( The Michael Berry Show), but I did yesterday.  He had a couple black guys call [this is the part of the show I heard.  I didn't hear it all].  One seemed to be telling Berry to shut up.  The other just seemed to be angry.  Got that?  The black guy was angry and his side WON.  Go figure. 
• Ann Barnhardt is ready for Civil War Redux.
• Limbaugh says we've lost the country.
• Boehner is ready to consider revenue increases.  ( Oh brother)

What I get from it all is that the GOP is hopelessly divided.  Who knows if they'll be able to coaslesce around one winning theme and stick with it.

Supposedly the economy was the big issue in this campaign.  Yet they couldn't beat a guy who couldn't generate net job growth over the last 4 years.  You have to really try to lose in order to lose to something like that.

Obama supposedly had an edge on foreign policy, yet it may have been a weakness that they couldn't or wouldn't exploit.  The media's silence on Benghazi was a huge tell of an immense weakness.  If it weren't so, they wouldn't have cared enough to suppress it.

This outcome may not have anything to do with job performance.   It has nothing to do with justice, or morality.  It had nothing to do with patriotism.  Yet they all act like it does.  Clearly, it doesn't.  Just look at the results. 

I think it means that the Democrats have managed to come up with a strategy for which the GOP has no answer.  They grow constituencies.  The GOP's is shrinking.  It is pure power.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Steve Deace had one observation that coincides with what I've been getting at here with this blog.  Sell solutions, not values.  People will be loyal to who's writing their paycheck.  The Democrats have hijacked the government and are using it to provide paychecks to people who will vote for that.

The rest of the people are going to get clobbered by these Democrats.  If you can find a solution for that, you may be able to beat them.  Until that time, the losses will continue to mount.

Romney doesn't get more votes than McCain

I saw that on some web pages, but thought that a lot of votes were yet to be counted.  As of now, it looks like that may be the case.  If Romney had gotten more votes than McCain, we may have seen a different outcome.

Did voters stay home because they didn't like Romney?

That may be a difference maker right there.

Article: I apologize for what you’re about to read

sovereignman

• It doesn’t matter how much they increase tax rates– they won’t collect any more money.
• Bottom line, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It won’t make a difference how high they raise taxes, or even if they cut everything else that remains in government as we know it.

Comment:

Yes, I think it is true.  All that Obama has achieved is get himself re-elected captain of the Titanic.  The iceberg was hit a long time ago.  The ship is going down.

Can't resist the phrase:  California here we come!

President Obama has been re-elected with strong Latino support

nbclatino.com  via Free Republic

• A historic number – 75 percent of Latinos – voted for Obama’s re-election, according to Latino Decisions exit polls, the highest Latino support for any presidential candidate in the nation’s history.
• Latino voters were key in delivering battleground states.
• ”Many Latinos we polled were nervous over the Ryan budget and its proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid,” Barreto says. [emphasis added: comment WTF?  It was Obamacare that did that.]
• ”The enthusiasm of Latino voters in this election reflects not only support for Obama and his policies, but dislike for the policies of Romney and the GOP,” says Cristina Beltran, a professor of cultural and social analysis at New York University.[emphasis added]

Comment:

This factor was completely overlooked.  In fact, I got the impression that Hispanics didn't like Obama.  This support for Obama seems like it came completely out of nowhere.  I didn't see it mentioned anywhere.

If all of this is true as the article claims, this is bad news for Republicans in the years ahead.

I get the feeling that it is a racial thing.  Not much you can do about that.  That battle has already been lost.

Update:

I know I saw something about the Asian vote as well.  But I couldn't find it.  So, I googled Asian vote and came up with this.   Asians tend to vote Democrat and this article says that they are overlooked.  It seems that this is a recurring theme.

Leading Causes of Death

Number of deaths for leading causes of death ( 2009 data)

Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Question:

How does ObamaCare improve these statistics for YOU?

Are you more or less likely to find a solution for mitigating these risks wth this act of Congress?

My belief is no.

Are you better off than four years ago?

Comparisons have been made between this election and 32 years ago.  In the Reagan Carter debate that preceded the election, Reagan asked that famous question.

It is interesting to observe that Democrats like to ask that question in terms that if "we" are better off as opposed to "you" being better off.  I think that the "you" is better than the "we" because you are a better judge of your own case than the Democrats are.  When the Democrats say "we", they are speaking for "you" without you being asked.

With respect to one issue, ObamaCare, the Democrats didn't seem to give a tinker's damn about what "you" think.  They passed it anyway and continue to support it no matter what.  Obama said that he even liked the name "ObamaCare".  Yet, the polls said that the law is unpopular.

So, the question could be re-phrased as follows:  "Does the ObamaCare law improve your situation, or does it make matters worse for you ?"

The Democrats also like to say that the people vote against their own self-interests.  The Democrats think people are stupid.

People are fallible.  They are subject to mistakes.  Some are truly stupid.  Others are not.  On the whole, the entire population is average.  Average is not stupid.  So, I'll give the people a little more credit than what the Democrats will give.  However, the people, being average, can be fooled.

Vote for Obama if you like ObamaCare.  Because if he is elected, we are going to be stuck with it.  Vote for the Democrats in the Senate, for if the Senate remains with the Democrats, they will block any attempts to get rid of ObamaCare.   If the Democrats can just hang on to the Senate, we are stuck with ObamaCare.  This may well be our only chance of getting rid of it.  So, if you like ObamaCare, vote Democrat.

Otherwise, throw the bums out.

Today's the day

Election day, that is.

Everywhere I look, it seems, there's some prediction of the outcome.  As usual, I'm not running with the pack.

Instead, I'll comment upon something I saw about Michael Moore.  It was about how the Founding Fathers disenfranchised voters.  Rather than comment negatively on that, it seemed interesting to speculate a bit on what the government should actually be like.

Should the president be elected by a nationwide popular vote, as some like Moore would prefer?  Or should it be more like the Founders intended?

What did the Founders intend?  The intention was a pluralistic governance based upon a system of checks and balances.  The natural tendency is toward factionalism.  This is not necessarily good, but the theory was that if there were enough factions spread out over a large extent, it could temper and control the effects.  The government was designed so as to be divided against itself in many ways.  To put it simply, the Founders didn't trust government, nor did they trust pure democracy.

I think I'd trust their judgment more than Michael Moore's.

Moore has this faith in democracy which does not square with history.  Democracies tend to commit suicide. If anything, that appears to be getting validated in the West, as this culture is doing itself in.  Why be so enamored of democracy?

Moore's critique is the type of accusatory style you often see of liberals.  The Founders were just a bunch of bigots.  So are all conservatives.  The liberals and the liberals alone are the standard bearers of all that is good.  That bit of self-proclaimed goodness and innocence is a bit sickening, if you ask me.  I'm inclined to believe that human beings are flawed.  People cannot be always trusted to do the right thing.

The Founders understood it that way.  They recognized the need for government because people are not angels.  The government needed to control the population, but it also had to control itself.  Therefore, its powers should be limited and diffuse.  Just enough to ensure order, but not too much to become overbearing and oppressive. I think they had the right idea.

Let's hope that the Founders' idea of governance continues, and the ideas of Moore's do not go too far.  Benjamin Franklin was asked about what kind of government they had created at the Constitutional Convention.  His reply was: " A republic, if you can keep it."  If the people realize their limitations, they'll understand the need for the government to be limited and kept within the limits of a republic.  A democracy is to be avoided.

If that is done, the Republic will be safe for now.  Let us hope that this will be the most important outcome of this election.  That is to say, let us hope that the friends of the Constitution and the Republic are the winners.

I leave it to the voters to do the right thing.  [ cross my fingers ]

The Blues Brothers - She Caught the Katy

For some strange reason, I'm thinking of this song. A Chicago politician is up for reelection tomorrow. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Obama's re-election would reward failure

This post will be made with an insistence upon truth.  As it will be thought of as being nothing more than partisan hatchet job.

Several questions need to be asked and answered honestly for those who dare:

1. Why is Romney's Bain Capital background a minus and not a plus?  Since when did success become a liability?
2. Why does the defense of America become a problem and not a solution?  Why abandon America's defense if it is worth defending?
3. Why do policy makers insist upon the most complex and expensive ways to solve an alleged problem like global warming--- such as cellulosic ethanol as a biofuel?  Why not a simpler and cheaper way --- such as pyrolysis of switchgrass?
4. Why do policy makers insist upon ineffective and expensive ways of providing clean energy such as solar and wind energy --- when such things as molten salt nuclear reactor technology is feasible and has been feasible for decades?
5. Update:  Why continue to fund expensive fusion projects like ITER, when a cheaper and simpler way may be found?  Examples:  Polywell and Focus Fusion.  Others exist as well.
6. Why credit someone for defending America when he insists upon blaming it for a problem that he himself would not address in Benghazi?
7. Why listen to the media when they are so often wrong about so many things?  
8. In short---Why punish success and reward failure?  Isn't the re-election of Obama just exactly that?

Morning Jay: Why Romney Is Likely to Win

Morning Jay: Why Romney Is Likely to Win

On the eve of the election

It is very early Monday morning here, the beginning of a new work week.  As I am wrapping up for the early morning part of posting on this blog, this could be one of the last posts prior to the opening of the polls on Tuesday.

It is rather remarkable to look at the news sites on the web.  It is quite political and quite biased.  It is either Democrat or Republican.  Both claim that the election is a foregone conclusion.  Both cannot be right.  One side will lose and it will be very disappointing.

As for me, it is hard to believe that Obama can win in this environment.  Yet, he could.  It was hard for me to believe that a man such as himself with such a radical background could win in 2008, yet it happened.  The charge of racism is highly overblown.  If Obama was white and Romney was black, the same people would be voting the same way.  Race has nothing to do with it.  Race is a smoke screen, an excuse.  If anything, the racial motivations are coming from the left.

Whatever happens, the focus of this blog will be on solutions to problems.  These solutions are not likely to come from the political process.  The best that we can hope for from the politicians is for them to stay out of the way.  My hunch is that most of the people in this country understand it that way and will vote accordingly.

If the worst happens and Obama returns, the blog may become something of an escape from the lunacy overtaking the world and this country.  To a certain extent, that's what the blog already is.  But let us hope that sanity returns and Obama is on the way out.  The world will be better for it.

BP Plant Cancellation Darkens Cellulosic Ethanol’s Future

technologyreview  via Instapundit

• There’s also good reason to think that the cellulosic technology isn’t competitive, in spite of what many biofuels companies say. Each company’s costs are based on small-scale plants, and it’s impossible to know how the enzymes and microörganisms used in the process will perform at a large scale, says David Ripplinger, an economist at North Dakota State University.
• Whereas early estimates—the ones that helped spur the cellulosic ethanol mandates—put the cost at $30 a ton, the actual costs are more like $80 to $130 a ton. That means the grass and wood chips required to make a gallon of ethanol will cost $1.30 to $1.48—even before anything is done to process them.

Comment:

The numbers for the biomass are similar to what I looked up yesterday for the methanol through pyrolysis method.  Pyrolysis is simpler and it may be a better way to get biofuel.  It may also be cheaper.

Here's some calculations that I figured yesterday based upon my earlier work:

2,865,599,000,000 total miles driven by Americans each year

47,759,983,333 kg hydrogen--- divide total miles driven by 60 miles per kg fuel economy yielding hydrogen needed to satisfy total fuel demand based upon miles driven

198,999,931 acres needed--- found from the calculations of yield per acre

310, 937 sq miles assuming only 1 harvest per year, up to 3 per year--- amount of farmland needed for the biomass

Total farmland in US? approx 1.5 million sq miles

Conclusion--- not infeasible.   More work on the economics needed.  Can probably beat the 9 buck a kg assumption, but by how much?

Obama Blew It! Dick Morris TV: Special Election Alert!

Obama Blew It! Dick Morris TV: Special Election Alert!

Wanna end the nightmare?

Whatever you do, don't fall asleep!  That is, until after the election.

What the hay, Part II

Went to Ask.com and started looking at the costs and so forth.

You can get 4 tons of hay per acre, it says here.

As for what it would cost, here's a source:

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/news/fbmu/2011/12-01/article_3_fbmu_12-09.html

Now, the assumption for the price of hydrogen is about 9 bucks per kilogram.  Wrong, at least according to this!  So, how much hydrogen can you get out of a ton of hay?

Not directly answerable, but this source says the following:

Using mature gasification technology, one ton of biomass can be used to produce 165 gallons of methanol, as opposed to only about 100 gallons of cellulosic ethanol

A gallon of water weighs 8.33lbs, methanol is less dense than water at a ratio of  0.7918 giving the weight of a gallon of methanol at  6.596 lbs or about 3 kg.  About 1/8 of the mass of methanol is hydrogen.  That's about 3/8 kg times 165 equals 61.835 kgs per ton of biomass.  From the table above 181.25/61.835 equals
$2.93 per kg.

Given that other products are available from the biomass, and other considerations, it may be guessed that the price of this could be less than 9 bucks per kg.

Coaster No. 17, avoid the focal point

In order to solve the uneven heating problem, move heat exchanger below convergence point.  Pic below identifies area where concentration of energy is at its greatest.  The focal point in the center is at the greatest concentration of energy.  But, even though that creates the highest energy point, that energy point may be too high.  So, the idea is to move away from that a bit while retaining some of that concentrated energy.

This could enable a heat exchanger to be placed at that spot.  Much simpler design.  The downside could be that it may not be hot enough.  One way to compensate for that is with a larger mirror.

This may be good enough now to make the concept work.

Articles: How the Shy Republican...

Articles: How 'The Shy Republican' Could Be Masking a Landslide

This post is in response to the Samizdata speculations about the election.

California, Here We Stay by Victor Davis Hanson, City Journal Autumn 2012

California, Here We Stay by Victor Davis Hanson, City Journal Autumn 2012

The four-part solution for California is clear: don’t raise the state’s crushing taxes any higher; reform public-employee compensation; make use of ample natural resources; and stop the flow of illegal aliens. Just focus on those four areas—as California did so well in the past—and in time, the state will return to its bounty of a few decades ago.

Comment:

This is an optimistic view of the future of California.  It could serve the same purpose for the nation as well.

Obama and his ilk don't fit that mold.