MN mandate 5%biodiesel, Tesla Video, African Acre Farmer, Tax TeaParty made by Fox
On the other hand, Al doesn't appear to need a whole lot of reassurance these days. Based on the commentary from journalists in Washington over the last couple of days, the defection of Senator Arlen Specter (R, New Jersey) to the Democratic Party [so it's really (D. New Jersey) now] is being counted as the 60th senate seat for the Democrats. Apparently the idea that Al Franken will prevail in the long fought Minnesota Senatorial race of 2008 (and 2009, it turns out) is now almost a foregone conclusion, at least among the liberal press in Washington, including the panelists on This Week with George Stephanopolous.
In all my wanderings, I found myself lost in thought many times. It was a revelation to me, however, that I had lost my bearings with respect to the Greenfuels company. I was well aware that Greenfuels was the company with the highly successful experiment to grow algae using flue gases from the Arizona Public Service (APS) gas-fired electric generation plant called "Redhawk". On the other hand I had completely forgotten that the origin of the company was a gentleman named Isaac Berzin, a very bright fellow from Israel. Here is a rather charming video of Mr. Berzin discussing the future of fuels, algae fuels, of course.
There used to be an artificial construct in journalism (at least as concerns "news" reporting) that established the standard to which one should strive was one of absolute objectivity. No subjective writing, the dictum said, or words to that effect. These days we look upon that as being an idea from a naive time in history since we realize that one's entire life is filled with influences that make pure and absolute objectivity impossible. The new standard, then, in news, is "fair and balanced" reporting. Mind you, while the Fox News channel uses exactly that phrase as its slogan, if you type in the words, "fox news fair and balanced" into the Google search box, what comes back is mainly arguments that the words are not representative of the actual editorial policy of the Fox News Channel. Since Maggie and I have been getting a large dose of our news from the decidedly "liberal" and "Democratic" (note the capitalization) MSNBC channel, you might think that I would agree with that point of view which says Fox is a biased source of news. Surprisingly (even to me) I do not.
There is no question that Fox News Channel's commentators, observers and political pundits have a distinctly conservative (ummm, maybe that should be written, "CONSERVATIVE!!") viewpoint almost without exception, but the reporting of the "news" as such does maintain a fairly balanced and unbiased factual basis, to the extent that such unbiased reporting is possible. Nobody is perfect. Recent events surrounding the April 15th IRS due date and the protesters having their "tea party" protests was not Fox's finest hour.
According to an article on a website called "News Hounds" (and whose openly biased viewpoint is blatantly stated up front as "We watch Fox so you don't have to"), the media watchdog group, Media Matters says that Fox News Channel ran 107 promotional ads for its coverage of the "tea party" events. However, while the promotional spots themselves promoted their coverage as, "fair and balanced network coverage -- live" from the various events, it also called them, ""FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Remember, however, Fox News Channel is intended to make money. It does that by serving a particular market, even though News Corp (owner of Fox) Chairman, Rupert Murdoch probably, personally, voted for President Obama. But all of that was just a distraction from the point I originally set out to make.
What set me off on this was a British news source, The Independent that carried a story about presumably reputable "scientific" studies published in "Science" magazine. The thrust of the story, credited to their science editor, Steve Connor (though I am not sure about the reports themselves or the publication of them in "Science") was that the scientist authors of these studies claim that biofuels will "cost" more carbon dioxide than they can ever "save" in reduced carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources. Or rather, they will cause the release of more carbon dioxide than they can save in literally hundreds of years. Citing examples of converting a peat bog to grow palm trees for palm oil, or cutting down Amazonian rain forests to grow soy beans, the reporter says that studies estimate that it would take 423 years and 319 years, respectively, to pay off the 'carbon debt' such destructive practices would create. DUH!!
Now there may be unscrupulous people (and there undoubtedly are) who would chop down rainforest or dig up Indonesian peat bogs to plant "green" fuel crops, but that is rather like saying, "We shouldn't allow anyone to dig gold out of the ground because robbers will kill the gold miners on the way to the bank and steal their hard earned wealth." "'All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture,' said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies."
Let's try a little experiment, Joe (of US Nature Conservancy). Let's substitute "children" for "biofuels" in your equation and see if it makes any sense. "'All the children we raise now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food [to feed] these children, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture,' said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies." So the answer is to stop having children, right, Joe?
Sorry, Joe, I actually agree with your statement about not using current food crops to produce biofuels, as any regular reader of this column well knows. However, I also don't agree with such heavy handed statistics stacking (any more than you would be likely to believe that my "children" substitution is a valid comparison, either). We need a rapid advance in both science and policy to get beyond this stupid corn ethanol for cars concept. In Russia most of the drinkable alcohol is made from potatoes, or at least that is my understanding of the origins of vodka. Do you suppose they would try to grow corn (maize) to try to produce fuel alcohol?
This next video is here more for the humor than the informational value. In fact, to me, it is informational that David Letterman's sense of humor actually amuses me this time around. Well, that is, except for the truly idiotic, juvenile, screaming, "self-electrocution" nonsense. Which reminds me that I would really like to see streaming video players have a "speed control" like my software DVD player. I would have loved to "zip" through that portion of the Letterman show presentation of the "Tesla" electric car. Elon Musk, founder and creator of Tesla Motors, was interviewed by David Letterman the other night, and in farily typical Letterman style, he almost ignores the gentleman in order to make his jokes (you see, I really don't like to give myself a chance to analyse what Letterman does, which is why I don't often watch him). I guess I found the jokes funny partly because I agreed with the underlying premise that all of this hoopla about innovation in electric cars should have happened 20 years ago, and at minimum shows what a big mistake it was to withdraw and scrap the General Motors EV1 vehicle. Mr. Musk was there to show off his all electric sedan, the follow up to the very impressive Tesla sports roadster. The clip embedded below came to my attention because it was included with brief article on The Huffington Post website
Okay, if you liked that bit, you might also decide you want to put yourself through the total frustration of watching an entire movie about that stupidity of junking the EV1, and how the whole thing looked like an "inside job" of corporate sabotage especially from a marketing point of view. The film is called, Who Killed the Electric Car? If you have high blood pressure, you might want to avoid it. It was very frustrating for me to watch.
There is an article which appears in the Business Daily Africa website that explains in quite explicity terms how growing biodiesel feedstock can be profitable for farmers in Kenya. In particular, the non-food "Castor" plant seeds are discussed. The journalist has interviewed a Mr. Muia (who appears to be promoting his own "Global Development of Peace Environment" company) so some caution might be advisable with respect to the accuracy of the details, but Mr.Muia claims that about 700 kilos of castor seeds yields about 300 liters of biodiesel fuel which will run his Toyota about 4200 miles. That is about 14 kilometers per liter, which is about 33 miles per US gallon. Fairly ordinary, which is actually fairly good news since there seems to be little if any penalty for the "bio" derivation of the feedstock.
Kenyan farmers who work with Mr. Muia reportedly have to use about 12 kilos of seed per acre, plus about 3 bags of CAN fertilizer (calcium, ammonia, nitrogen). The seed costs 2,400 shillings, the fertilizer costs 4,800 shillings for a total of 7,200 shillings. Now, of course there is labor, and risk and all the other details of farming to consider, but an acre can produce 1200 to 1800 kilos of castor seed, which currently sells for about 250 shillings per kilo. That means that an acre could provide the farmer with something between 300,000 and 450,000 shillings of income per year. That is US$37,000 per year per acre (on the low end).
There are a lot of acres in Africa that have at least as favorable growing conditions as the arid Kitui district where Mr. Muia buys his castor nuts. There are not a lot of farmers in Africa putting US$37,000 in the bank every year for a single acre's cultivation.
In the world of entertainment, I've had a busy week. I saw, The Soloist starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Fox. Despite rave critical reviews, I found it rather flat from a story perspective. Sorry guys, but I have loved the performances of these two actors before and I am sure I will again, but not this time out, and without that there really isn't much to this movie.
Conversely, however, the DVD of Revolver, directed by Guy Ritchie was excellent. The film is from 2005, and it is a truly absorbing story of a violent and scary underworld in Las Vegas in which even a hardened criminal, fresh from 7 years of solitary confinement in prison, played by Jason Statham (best known to most folks for his starring/title role as The Transporter) the film also evokes stronger films like Mullholland Dr. by David Lynch. That is not to say this is anything less than a powerful film full of action, tension and high drama, all with deep psychological underpinnings, and a "twist" ending that is not exactly a complete surprise, but surprising nonetheless. This is one I recommend.
My "happy note" ending for this week is that we will be putting out a press release about licensing of my cookie recipe. It may not make headlines in your local newspaper, but it's pretty exciting for me, since I have been looking for the "right" partner for this ever since my neighbors tasted and raved about my "world's best chocolate cookie". (Modesty is not one of my greatest strong points, I'm more of a "hey, look me over" guy and a subscriber to the "don´t hide my light under a bushel" classic adage.) The license doesn´t require them to call them, "Doc´s Choc-conut Cookies", but I´m keeping some fingers crossed that they´ll like the "ring" of the name and the design work already partially completed for the package.
Love and best wishes,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
Print
Email
