November 26, 2005
SUGAR DADDYS:
Race is on for backup fuels (Greg Gordon, November 26, 2005, Sacramento Bee)
After years - or even decades - of sitting on the fringe of the world oil debate, the issue of what to do when production dwindles is starting to get attention in Congress.This month, a bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators proposed legislation to accelerate the nation's shift to new energy sources in the transportation sector, which accounts for two-thirds of America's oil consumption, guzzling 14 million barrels of oil each day. [...]
If rising demand and the inability to produce more oil lead to shortfalls before a shift to alternative sources occurs, the global effect could be huge, the Energy Department consultants wrote. They said U.S. costs from a prolonged oil shortage could reach $4 trillion. Developed countries would face inflation, rising unemployment and recession, they wrote, while Third World nations "will likely be even worse off."
U.S. companies and government agencies already are exploring the energy alternatives proposed by the senators, but progress has come at less than breakneck speed.
Experts say that high startup costs, technological hurdles, tepid consumer demand for pricier, fuel-efficient vehicles, and other obstacles likely will prevent such products from significantly reducing U.S. oil imports for a decade or more without government intervention.
Easy enough to make gas expensive enough that alternatives are attractive and motivate innovation. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 26, 2005 11:27 AM
oj. Why are you so adverse to letting nature take its course and the law of supply and demand set the direction of fuel exploration, and everything else for that matter. Manipulation and planning just add another layer that interferes with market forces at work.
We would have countless nuclear energy plants on line right now if we didn't have the busy-bee regulators and obstructionists at work in government.
Because the market will render cheap gas.
Posted by: oj at November 26, 2005 11:59 AM"Because the market will render cheap gas."
Horrors.
On the other hand, intervention by dim and/or corrupt politicos will waste resources.
The natural-selection process of competition and subsititution is perfectly capable of bringing about changes in consumer preferences and entrepreneurial insights.
Or did you suppose that whale oil lost favor as a lighting fuel because some genius in Congress mandated a change? Sometimes I wonder about you chaps.
Posted by: Axel Kassel at November 26, 2005 12:09 PMLook, guys, OJ is way into government intervention. He's on record as saying we should all be required to wear helmets in our living rooms to prevent against injury from falls as long as said law would save even one life; so of course he's sure government has an answer for energy consumption far superior to the markets, which are dirtied by the uninformed preferences of the hoi-polloi.
Posted by: Palmcroft at November 26, 2005 12:30 PMPalmcroft:
What is the question about energy consumption that we're trying to answer?
Posted by: oj at November 26, 2005 12:52 PMAs far as I can tell OJ is in favor of market forces forcing changes as higher costs for automotive fuels leading to technical innovation, alternate source development and efficient utilization of existent sources/technologies. Higher costs can be assured by a flexible fuel tax that could stabilize higher prices at an acceptable level economically. The benefit would be a reduction in our balance of payments, reduced financial support for our enemies and the probable launch of new domestic industries to support the new technologies. What's not to like?
Posted by: Genecis at November 26, 2005 12:54 PMSimmons and the rest of the Peak Oil fans are nitwits. Why punish the American people now to deal with the "crisis" they keep fantasizing about?
It would have been nice if the author had been kind enough to name the eight Senators. It's bad enough if a real industry expert (Yergin) gets buried in favor of a cultist, but basic journalism would require if you're going to mention "eight Senators" that you name them. Unfortunately, basic journalism is frequently replaced by agenda journalism these days.
Posted by: kevin whited at November 26, 2005 1:28 PMOur balance of payments would be reduced if we'd stop kowtowing to those on the left who want to destroy our economy and we start developing our energy resources and building nuclear power plants, among other sensible things we don't do because we don't want the media to start jumping up and down and moving the earth off its axis.
Genecis et al. Do you know the parable of the New York subways. Each time the fare was raised, income went down because people found alternate ways to get where they were going. Raise gas prices to force people into doing what you think is best for them and watch their reactions. It won't be pretty and it won't be an increase in mass transit.
Nixon liked control too, so he froze prices and wages. Check back to see how successful that was.
Posted by: erp at November 26, 2005 1:50 PMPaid $1.96/gallon today within 100 yards of I-495, so there's another crisis solved.
OJ believes that he can drive conservatism into the same kind of naive, faux-pagan environmentalism in which the left claims to believe and that he can then use environmentalism to reestablish the 18th century -- we all live within walking distance of work, the only transportation is expensive and communal, we all gather together in church on Sundays and the community cares for itself.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 26, 2005 4:05 PMOJ and Genecis are awaiting their appointments to Brussels. They will serve well in thickening-up that constitution.
OJ: the energy consumption question is: which fuel ought we to use? I propose the government is not the one to answer that question. You propose that it most certainly is, by means of condescending guidance taxes.
My proposal does not make your straw-man libertarian, just wary of government. Your proposal shows the real danger of your beloved Third Way: lack of discipline. The Third Way evolves back into the New Deal pretty quickly.
Posted by: Palmcroft at November 26, 2005 4:20 PMYeah, what's up his incessant gas tax agitprop? Guess he wants us all to walk or ride horses. Really, this blog should be renamed "Brothers Tax On Gas."
Posted by: Gary at November 26, 2005 7:22 PMWell, is oil a strategic resource or not? Can't say that it is and then hide behind the law of supply and demand whenever the price goes the wrong way.
Posted by: Peter B at November 26, 2005 8:16 PMPalm:
Exactly. We know that gasoline is a fuel we don't want to use. The best way to guarantee it gets replaced is to make it expensive.
Posted by: oj at November 26, 2005 8:17 PMDavid:
What do gas taxes have to do with the environment? Farming for and burning ethanol will do more damage than gas.
Posted by: oj at November 26, 2005 8:26 PMkevin whited is correct, Hubbert's Peak is nowhere near.
Even if global economic activity were to DOUBLE, there is no chance whatsoever that the world's oil fields would begin to run dry.
However, it IS quite likely that we're approaching, or have passed, the peak global production of cheap oil, i.e., petroleum costing $ 15/bbl or less to produce.
If we're willing to pay $ 90/bbl, we can get all of the oil that we could ever want, for hundreds of years - 100mm bbl/day, 300mm bbl/day, doesn't matter.
(Current global petroleum demand is 85mm bbl/day).
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 26, 2005 8:50 PM
Yes, the problem is that we've plenty of gas.
Posted by: oj at November 26, 2005 9:05 PMPeter B. makes a good point about the strategic nature of oil. It is a proper use of government resources to defend its citizens from cartels that control such a vital component of our economy. While defending us from the inflation of hiked-up oil prices is insipid nanny-statism, defending us from having the tap turned-off entirely is wise, as would be underwriting the liability costs for nuclear power plants so we can start building energy independence back into our country.
OJ, you are right about the need for higher gas taxes. I stand corrected.
Posted by: Palmcroft at November 26, 2005 9:57 PMOJ: I expressed myself badly. I agree, gas taxes have nothing to to with the environment. I meant to say that you are trying to use faux-pagan environmentalism as a stalking horse to bring about your true goal, the reestablishment of the 18th century.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 26, 2005 10:01 PMDavid: if OJ wants the 18th century back, he is going to have to reconcile himself to pub life and heavy drinking.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 26, 2005 11:15 PM"Exactly. We know that gasoline is a fuel we don't want to use. The best way to guarantee it gets replaced is to make it expensive."
Posted by: oj at November 26, 2005 08:17 PM
A significant gas tax at the pump will not drive alternatice fuel research or development. In fact, it will harm it and insure when and if it does happen, it won't be a product of American industry.
A gas tax will drive domestic gasoline consumption lower which will reduce worldwide demand and price for crude thereby supplementing our competition in manufacturing AS WELL AS service inustries.
Our economy will be weakened to the point it will not have the ability to develop alternative fuels and why would it as crude would be cheaper not more expensive.
Posted by: Perry at November 26, 2005 11:23 PMPerry:
This is correct:
A gas tax will drive domestic gasoline consumption lower which will reduce worldwide demand and price for crude thereby supplementing our competition in manufacturing AS WELL AS service industries.
These are not:
A significant gas tax at the pump will not drive alternative fuel research or development.
Our economy will be weakened to the point it will not have the ability to develop alternative fuels...
High prices ALWAYS change behavior, and we could channel that quest for alternatives into alt. fuels.
The Euros have had high petrol taxes for decades, and they've responded by developing tiny vehicles, and by extensively using diesel passenger vehicles.
Our economy won't be weakened much, because although our rivals may well slightly benefit from lower oil prices, international trade makes up less than 10% of the U.S. economy, and they'd only have a slight edge.
Further, if only gasoline is highly taxed, neither the industrial use of oil nor the transportation of goods, (which uses diesel), will be much affected.
Except for benefitting from lower prices, of course.
at November 26, 2005 11:51 PM
So, Britain pays something like $6 at the pump because of their fuel taxes. You would suppose they'd be a hotbed of alternative-fuel research then, but I don't recall anything in the last year or so. Links, anybody? OJ? Michael?
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 12:42 AMMichael,
You write, "Our economy won't be weakened much..." and contend this is because int. trade only accounts for a small percentage (10%) of the size of our economy. Well, I won't challenge your number but from a common sense standpoint, whole industries have gone overseas (obviously) and I think a whole lot more of it is set to go. Contending we are set to replace those jobs is one thing, which we have done so far, but you haven't made that augument and I am not so confident it can continue to happen at least not enough to throw industry away. Shifting more private capital to the government and jeapardizing already weak industries does not put us on firm ground for innovation.
Regarding alt fuels what is there really to innovate? After all, deisel is petrol and comes from crude. For purposes of this gas tax proposal, it is not an altenative fuel, hence you can't hide behind it or use it as a positive outcome of higher gas taxes. There would be no reason to tax gasoline and not deisel. What would you gain? Better mileage hence lower consumption? so what, that is not changing behavior. Arabs would still be in business and China would have cheaper crude.
What other alt fuels you want to talk about, bio deisel, not enough french fries in the world and not in the winter. Ethanol? What fuel you want to burn to make it? Hydrogen fuel cells? Batteries, nothing more. Electrity? We could do it tomorrow but where you want to build the nuclear plants? When you do a serious engineering analysis and core taps end up being your best bet, you are in trouble.
Bottom line is this gas tax proposal is just a punitive hammer blow to the side of our collective head. It is one really stupid idea supported by people with wicked agendas. They are un-american and probably should be persecuted.
I might add it is higher crude oil prices that make sense, not lower as we need to hit the treshhold number that makes sense for drillers to go after the ton of oil in the $100 dollar a barrel range. Once these areas are tapped, the Middle east can go to hell.
They ought to be able to do core taps next century, until then, we burn oil.
Posted by: Perry at November 27, 2005 1:26 AMWhat's not to like?A river of cash in the hands of the government. That never turns out well.
As for OJ,
The best way to guarantee it gets replaced is to make it expensive.No, the best way to make sure it gets replaced is to regulate the price to 10¢/gallon. Nothing will cause massive shortages and the disppearance of gasoline faster than that. Did you learn nothing from watching the USSR's economic policies? Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 27, 2005 1:26 AM
joe shropshire:
http://www.sundayherald.com/47845 -
A report commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and seen by the Sunday Herald, recommends that Britain leave significant research and development in hydrogen and fuel cell technology to countries such as the US, Japan and China, which are ploughing billions of dollars into creating a “hydrogen economy” – a global market estimated to be worth £24 billion by 2011.“You don’t need a seat at the table for everything. Global markets will ensure that good products are developed,” the draft report states.
So says the gov't, anyhow, and they're right about global markets. However, from the same article, the private sector responds:
This latter assertion has met with strong opposition among the country’s fledgling hydrogen and fuel cell businesses, which argue that the report ignores the potential for applying the new technology in rural communities with an abundance of renewable energy potential, notably the Western Isles, the Northern Isles and parts of the Highlands. [...]Two British demonstration projects are studying the conversion of renewable energy into hydrogen for fuel cells. Rupert Gammon, technical advisor to the West Beacon Farm Project, in Leicestershire, accused the government of “short-sightedness” in the report. He said that a renewable energy system and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies had to be developed in parallel. [...]
“The whole lot has got to come from sustainable sources and the only way to do that is through renewables and possibly nuclear. Hydrogen is the only thing that anybody has come up with that actually ties these together.”
Sandy Macaulay is manager of the Pure project on Unst, a community-owned renewable energy project using hydrogen technology to provide the energy for an industrial estate.
He said: “Hydrogen from renewables, which is what we have seen as a niche for Shetland and the UK in general, is not going to solve the world’s energy problems. But it’s do-able , it adds to the diversity of our energy supply. ”
UK: FUEL CELL POWER No. 20 Spring 2005 -
[All emph. add.] The world’s first purpose built fuel cell powered electric bike was launched at the Design Museum in London during March. Conceived by Loughborough-based Intelligent Energy, it has a range of 150 kms [90 miles], at least double that of other electric bikes, and a top speed of 80 kph [45 MPH] ... The launch is a victory for the know-how and aspirations of the project’s all-British team [...]Twelve years ago Intelligent Energy’s technical team, based at the University of Loughborough, had the vision to start developing hydrogen fuel cell technologies. Their unique PEM fuel cell was designed from first principles and combines novel fluid and thermal management techniques with metal plate architecture. [...]
The ENV (Emissions Neutral Vehicle) bike was designed to Intelligent Energy’s brief by a British team, led by multi-award winning designers Seymourpowell who were last year cited as one of Britain’s most important cultural movers and shakers in a BBC poll. The ENV bike is fully-functioning and has been engineered and purpose-built from the ground up, demonstrating the real, everyday applicability of fuel cell technology. The design is based around Intelligent Energy’s world-beating CORE fuel cell, which is completely detachable from the bike. [...]
The reduced complexity and cost of Intelligent Energy’s PEM fuel cell are of vital importance to their partners in Japan who are developing combined heat and power systems, as well as for Boeing who have selected it for the first fuel cell powered manned flight. [...]
An ambitious initiative launched this spring is geared to make Wales a key centre in the UK for the demonstration and development of alternative fuel technologies. [...]
"Hydrogen Valley" will work with the Welsh auto sector to ensure it is equipped to take advantage of these emerging technologies and it will also focus on developing niche markets and new business opportunities.
at November 27, 2005 2:20 AM
So, hydrogen-powered bicycles. Thanks, Michael.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 2:44 AMPerry:
[All emph. add.] It is biodegradable and non-toxic, and has significantly fewer emissions than petroleum-based diesel (petro-diesel) when burned. Biodiesel functions in current engines. [...]With a flash point of 150 °C, Biodiesel is classified as a non-flammable liquid by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This property makes a vehicle fueled by pure biodiesel far safer in an accident than one powered by petroleum diesel or the explosively combustible gasoline. [...]
Different plants produce usable oil at different rates. Some studies have shown the following annual production:
Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m³/km²)
Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m³/km²)
Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m³/km²)
Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m³/km²)
Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m³/km²) [2]
Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m³/km²)
[...]Specially bred mustard varieties can produce reasonably high oil yields, and have the added benefit that the meal leftover after the oil has been pressed out can act as a effective and biodegradable pesticide.
The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not been undertaken on a commercial scale, but working feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to a high yield, this solution does not compete with agriculture for food, requiring neither farmland nor fresh water. [...]
A 1998 joint study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) traced many of the various costs involved in the production of biodiesel and found that overall, it yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. That measure is referred to as the energy yield. A comparison to petroleum diesel, petroleum gasoline and bioethanol using the USDA numbers can be found at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website.
In the comparison petroleum diesel fuel is found to have a 0.843 energy yield, along with 0.805 for petroleum gasoline, and 1.34 for bioethanol. The 1998 study used soybean oil primarily as the base oil to calculate the energy yields. It is conceivable that higher oil yielding crops could increase the energy yield of biodiesel. [...]
[Looking at the above table, we can see that using rapeseed or mustard seed would TRIPLE the energy yield calculated in the joint DOE/USDA study, which used soybeans as the base crop].
More recent studies using a species of algae that has oil contents of as high as 50% have concluded that as little as 28,000 km² or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Further encouragement comes from the fact that the land that could be most effective in growing the algae is desert land with high solar irradiation, but lower economic value for other uses and that the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae.
Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae:University of New Hampshire -
First, we need to understand exactly how much biodiesel would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels. So, we need to start with how much petroleum is currently used for that purpose. Per the Department of Energy's statistics, each year the US consumes roughly 60 billion gallons of petroleum diesel and 120 billion gallons of gasoline. First, we need to realize that spark-ignition engines that run on gasoline are generally about 40% less efficient than diesel engines. So, if all spark-ignition engines are gradually replaced with compression-ignition (Diesel) engines for running biodiesel, we wouldn't need 120 billion gallons of biodiesel to replace that 120 billion gallons of gasoline. To be conservative, we will assume that the average gasoline engine is 35% less efficient, so we'd need 35% less diesel fuel to replace that gasoline. That would work out to 78 billion gallons of diesel fuel. Combine that with the 60 billion gallons of diesel already used, for a total of 138 billion gallons. [...]Posted by: Michael HerdegenTo produce that amount [using high-oil algae] would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles. [Emph. add.] [...] That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals. [...]
One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel compared to many other alternative transportation fuels is that it can be used in existing diesel engines without modification, and can be blended in at any ratio with petroleum diesel. This completely eliminates the "chicken-and-egg" dilemma that other alternatives have...
at November 27, 2005 3:26 AM
joe shropshire:
The F/A - 22 Raptor started with a couple of rather odd bicycle shop owners, and it's straight from the pages of science fiction.
If you'd clicked through the links that you asked for, you'd have found out what the fuel-cell powered bike means for alt-energy research, and what else the knowledge can be applied to.
In any case, now you know that there IS cutting-edge alt-energy research being done in Europe, which is exactly what Orrin's scheme would have predicted.
Aside from transportation-related alt-fuels, Europe is the world's leader in wind-power research and commercial equipment.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 27, 2005 3:40 AM
joe:
They use mass transit instead, which is an even better alternative than new fuels.
Posted by: oj at November 27, 2005 8:03 AMoj. Are you sure you don't have Italian ancestry? You're almost as unreasonably stubborn as my husband.
People will not use mass transit. Like the old song said, "You can't keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree." People won't stand still for going backward. After having my own car since the age of 16, I will never give up the freedom to come and go as I please. In fact, even though it is more expensive, we often drive the thousand plus miles to visit the kids rather than fly, just because we like the freedom of coming and going on our schedule rather than the airline's.
The issue of fuel will be solved, perhaps not as you envision, but I have faith in American ingenuity to come up with solutions that don't involve draconian controls.
erp:
That's the beauty of it--the folks who won't will just pay an ever higher share of taxes.
Posted by: oj at November 27, 2005 9:20 AMERP et al. Taxing is not a draconian control.
Joe, we're not looking at $6.00 a gallon. Somewhere under $3.00 could do the trick. The sky would not fall. We've just witnessed the event and its consequences.
This is not an environmental or economic issue. We're talking about national security.
Posted by: Genecis at November 27, 2005 10:49 AMPhasers on stun, Michael. You're right, that's a lovely press release those hydrogen-powered bicycle folks have got themselves there.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 7:01 PMGenecis, this has got nothing whatever to do with national security. Not even oj really believes that line; he just throws it out there, in typical oj fashion, because he knows some folks will buy it. If you really are bound and determined to use the tax code to frustrate Al Qaeda, you'd do much better by taxing the sorts of things AQ targets, and the sorts of things they target are cities and office buildings and train lines. OBL didn't blow up a bunch of SUVs on 9/11, he dropped the two biggest buildings he could find. Put a $10000 per square foot federal property tax on places like Manhattan and watch them empty out; give every refugee a brand new Suburban and tell them go find a spot on the prairie. I hear Salina, Kansas is very nice this time of year. Tax them out of their downtowns and you'll actually be doing something useful.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 7:22 PMjoe:
Did we or did we not cut the Sa'uds, Saddam, the Shah, etc, extra slack on human rights because they supplied our oil?
Posted by: oj at November 27, 2005 7:30 PMYes, we did, and do; and that was and is precisely the wrong thing to do. You are perfectly welcome to deprive the Sa'uds of their oil revenue, but taxing the American consumer is the least efficient way of doing so -- the rest of the world will still buy as much oil as the Saudis care to pump, right up until they run out. Put your money where your mouth is, have the Air Force take out Yanbu, and let the world market sort out the price.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 7:48 PM"Taxing is not a draconian control. Joe, we're not looking at $6.00 a gallon. Somewhere under $3.00 could do the trick."
Genesis, do what trick exactly? Put Middle East out of business ensuring are national security...all for a buck of tax at the pump!
Posted by: Perry at November 27, 2005 8:25 PMjoe:
Yes, you see what our dependency did to our security then.
Posted by: oj at November 27, 2005 8:42 PMNo, our dependency didn't, one bad actor (the Saudis) did. So let's punish the bad actor as least as severely as we punish ourselves.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 9:12 PMYou can't possibly begger the Arab world so much that they can't afford terrorism. Half the point of terrorism is that it is cheap. That's why the crazy leftists always argue that it's not immoral for the Palestinians to blow up Israeli children -- after all, they can't afford helicopter gun ships.
As OJ freely admits, his purposes are entirely domestic.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 27, 2005 9:36 PMOf course you can't. Fuel taxes are sin taxes. Which just goes to show that sooner or later every ruling class gets down to the business of punishing the populace for some imagined sin or other.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 9:42 PMDavid:
We don't need to beggar them--we've changed richer countries that we weren't dependents of.
Posted by: oj at November 27, 2005 9:52 PM"Fuel taxes are sin taxes. Which just goes to show that sooner or later every ruling class gets down to the business of punishing the populace for some imagined sin or other."
Joe, one smart point.
Posted by: Perry at November 27, 2005 10:17 PMHardly imagined. You've tiptoed right up to the edge of a genuine insight though--what do we mainly tax today?
Posted by: oj at November 27, 2005 10:19 PMWhatever it is you intellectuals decide you are offended by, that's what we tax today. You're on tiptoe yourself there, wild man.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 27, 2005 11:24 PMjoe shropshire:
Phasers on stun, Michael.
Not quite yet, but if an F/A - 22 Raptor had engaged any number of aircraft, of any nation, of any era through the 70s, the surviving pilots (if any) and military brass around the world would seriously be considering that the Raptor might be a product of alien technology, piloted by little green men.
Even now, one F/A - 22 can defeat eight of the 20th century's best fighters in air-to-air combat, and is TWICE as good as the next-best 21st century fighter, the Eurofighter Typhoon, under most circumstances.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 28, 2005 4:59 AM
joe:
Yes, and today that's income. So, applying your own quite accurate formula, our tax system is set up to discourage earning money.
Posted by: oj at November 28, 2005 7:18 AMMichael: LOL and my apologies for the snark, you won your point fairly as far as pure research is concerned. I do appreciate your optimism. However the F-22 is also a perfect example of the procurement death spiral: it's a great piece of technology, but as a public investment it can't compete with free pills for baby boomers. That's why we'll wind up with 150 or so of them instead of the 740 originally planned . I expect the same thing will happen to biodiesel and hydrogen.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 28, 2005 11:37 AMoj: just so. You think you can get them to trade their hatred of income for your common hatred of cars. Why shouldn't they just have both?
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 28, 2005 2:23 PMBecause it isn't up to them.
Posted by: oj at November 28, 2005 2:33 PM"only Americans innovate"
penicilin -- the u.k.
dna discovery -- the u.k.
television -- the u.k.
steam engine -- the u.k.
radar -- the u.k.
printed circuit board -- the u.k.
tanks -- the u.k.
machine gun -- the u.k.
novel -- the u.k.
commercial jet airliner -- the u.k.