Slashdot Mirror

It's a myth, albiet a popular one, that if you build more roads people will magically come to fill them. For a detailed rebuttal of this, scroll down to part 6 (Myth 5: the congestion relief myth) about 40% down.
http://www.rppi.org/ps245.html

I live one minute from a turnpike that's so underused you only see four or five other cars in a 12-mile trip. No, people did not mysteriously emerge because the road was built.

I don't see how anyone could argue that public transport is more pleasant than driving a car. You often have to stand up, in a hot, crowded bunch of people. If you can sit, your seat is generally hard and uncomfortable. Often it's hard to see out and figure out where you are so you can see your stop. Your car is a dramatic contrast: Comfortable seats, you can see out clearly, and you don't have to wait 15 minutes in the cold for it to arrive.

Extremely high density makes the NYC subway system work. If people loved public transit, all cities would look like that. Instead, people flee to the suburbs and jobs in the suburbs, and they use their cars to get there. This is how the overwhelming majority of Americans want to live.

The best way to solve the problem of pollution is to design better cars. The way to solve congestion problems is to build better roads. Trying to convince people to use public transport when they could drive is not going to work.

D

The reduction in farmed land is pretty insignificant and takes place mostly on "highly erodable land" or in buffer zones around water. Neither of these are very appealing places to put back into rotation.

That's not entirely true. We've lost a lot of smaller farms as the farming industry has been consolidated into larger firms. As a result, we've dropped from 1.2 billion acres in the 1960's to ~968 million acres in 1997. That's over 200 million acres (or about 20% of previous capacity) to explain away as poor farmland!

The real answer is, of course, more complex. Farming technology has increased considerably, upping production across all farmland. Production is so high that it's been driving down prices and making it more profitable to convert the land to other uses. (Especially if it's not the creme de la creme of farmland to begin with.) Of the land that's left, the U.S. government actually pays farmers to leave some of it unfarmed. This helps prop up the market by artificially driving down supply to keep pace with the demand. If the demand were to suddenly rise, that farmland would become more profitable to use rather than leave empty.

The second point would be a good one except that replacing crude with corn would take a lot of land. Much more than we make up in increased yields.

That's my point, though. We can use the extra farmland we have lying around That 200 million acres could easily produce ~100 billion gallons of ethanol just from corn. Now if we factor in increases in Sugar Cane production (which is exceedingly poor in South America mostly due to farming through manual labor and wasteful burning of crop husks that could be recycled, and otherwise poor in the states due to overall low demand) we could easily produce enough Ethanol to offer E50 and E85 blends to all consumers. Futher increases in production plus the addition of Bio-diesel to power our trucking infrastructure could easily make up the difference to eliminate petroleum altogether.

In any case, there is a thread about algae elsewhere in this commentary that is worth thinking seriously about. There is also the possibility of using one of the microbes Venter found in his current voyage to extract hydrogen from water.

I'm definitely open to these sorts of concepts. However, in the short term Ethanol allows us to reuse our existing infrastructure and vehicles while new technologies mature and roll out to the market. Plus we have an existing supply to start from that can be ramped up with demand. For all we know, E85 blends with the petroleum coming from algea could be the way of the future. :-)

The reduction in farmed land is pretty insignificant and takes place mostly on "highly erodable land" or in buffer zones around water. Neither of these are very appealing places to put back into rotation.

That's not entirely true. We've lost a lot of smaller farms as the farming industry has been consolidated into larger firms. As a result, we've dropped from 1.2 billion acres in the 1960's to ~968 million acres in 1997. That's over 200 million acres (or about 20% of previous capacity) to explain away as poor farmland!

The real answer is, of course, more complex. Farming technology has increased considerably, upping production across all farmland. Production is so high that it's been driving down prices and making it more profitable to convert the land to other uses. (Especially if it's not the creme de la creme of farmland to begin with.) Of the land that's left, the U.S. government actually pays farmers to leave some of it unfarmed. This helps prop up the market by artificially driving down supply to keep pace with the demand. If the demand were to suddenly rise, that farmland would become more profitable to use rather than leave empty.

The second point would be a good one except that replacing crude with corn would take a lot of land. Much more than we make up in increased yields.

That's my point, though. We can use the extra farmland we have lying around That 200 million acres could easily produce ~100 billion gallons of ethanol just from corn. Now if we factor in increases in Sugar Cane production (which is exceedingly poor in South America mostly due to farming through manual labor and wasteful burning of crop husks that could be recycled, and otherwise poor in the states due to overall low demand) we could easily produce enough Ethanol to offer E50 and E85 blends to all consumers. Futher increases in production plus the addition of Bio-diesel to power our trucking infrastructure could easily make up the difference to eliminate petroleum altogether.

In any case, there is a thread about algae elsewhere in this commentary that is worth thinking seriously about. There is also the possibility of using one of the microbes Venter found in his current voyage to extract hydrogen from water.

I'm definitely open to these sorts of concepts. However, in the short term Ethanol allows us to reuse our existing infrastructure and vehicles while new technologies mature and roll out to the market. Plus we have an existing supply to start from that can be ramped up with demand. For all we know, E85 blends with the petroleum coming from algea could be the way of the future. :-)

Hey you!! Don't copy that floppy!! -- The Software Publishers Association

You wouldn't steal a purse would you? Downloading pirated films is stealing!! - anti-piracy advert

"Ahh, your a land developer? Please.. Have a seat.." -- Your elected officials

"We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years."

the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, simply because the other might put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.(They Lost)

eminent domain today has degenerated into a means for politically connected developers to steal peoples' homes

Remember kids, it's not called stealing unless you are poor..

including the land that used to be in the former set-aside program?

Yes. In fact, farmland has actually decreased since, say, 1960 (1.2 billion acres to 1.1 billion acres). I can't find a link offhand iun a quick search, but I've found several previously indicating that irrigation has stayed relatively constant. What has changed is production efficiency.

The North American natural-gas market is one market

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The discussion is fertilizer production efficiency. Given that we produce half of our fertilizer, and Canada is our next biggest supplier, and then our two biggest suppliers after that are "developing nations" (not third-world), and then after that we're back up to first-world nations, it sounds like we should be using first-world production efficiencies. If we were importing relevant amounts of fertilizer from Chad and Uganda, Pimentel might have a valid excuse for using the worldwide average numbers. We're not, so he doesn't. Just like there's no excuse for using outdated ethanol plant efficiency numbers.

like maybe leave it in the ground

That would take a drastic swing in natural gas prices to get someone to invest the capital natural gas production and fertilizer production, and then decide to do nothing with it. Capital costs are your big costs, not incremental costs. Lowering output is one thing, but to cease production is altogether different.

My car can burn post-comsumer ag waste (biodiesel)

I.e., your car can burn processed plant matter that has gone through a refining process. Just like ethanol does. Just like you can't burn corn in your car, you can't burn ag waste in your car. It has to be refined first. That's why we're having this very discussion ;)

Ummm. Since when are the BTUs in electricity variable? Answer: when you include generation and transmission. 3416 is (about) 100% efficient conversion to heat (which isn't hard). That's the number you used - however, it misses out on a major component: electricity consumed (in BTU) is way less than the BTU burned to supply it.

Generation averages http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html around 33%. Overall system inputs are a bit over 10,000 BTU http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs94/ei/elec.ht ml to deliver 1 KWHr (3400 BTU) to the user, including generation and transmission. So it's totally unreasonable to assume no overhead, which is what you did by using 3416 BTU/KWHr. If we use the DOE numbers, the electricity use is roughly triple what you show, or around 300,000,000,000 BTU. That doesn't change the overall result (surplus goes down to around 800,000,000,000 BTU).

So, around 2.2 TBTU spent, and net result 3TBTU (positive 700 GBTU). So at best the payback is around 1.3x input.

You also have to add in fuel costs for transport to the refinery, transport to the end-use point (you can't transport it in pipelines), fuel used for planting, fertilizing, spraying, harvesting. Also energy costs for insecticides.

A good (and balanced) overview is http://www.rppi.org/ps315.pdf

Scottsdale, Arizona is a good example. They used Rural/Metro as their private carrier until 2004. linky. Here's Rural/Metro's history and locations. From the history link:

Rural/Metro's history goes back more than 50 years, when founder Lou Witzeman became concerned that his neighborhood didn't have fire protection. So he pooled together some money, bought a fire truck, and asked his neighbors to subscribe to his fledgling company.

With the company was also born a new way of thinking about health and safety services. As a private sector company, Rural/Metro is dedicated to finding the most cost-effective ways to deliver the highest quality ambulance transportation and fire protection services.

Where fire protection is private, the cost tends to be covered by subscription as part of the homeowner's fire insurance policy required by the lender.

And in this case do I have a choice of fire protection companies? Can I choose to have the guys from engine 39 be my fire department instead of those cocksuckers at District 12?

Even after the formation of paid fire companies in the United States, there were disagreements and often fights over territory. New York City companies were famous for sending runners out to fires with a large barrel to cover the hydrant closest to the fire in advance of the engines. Often fights would break out between the runners and even the responding fire companies for the right to fight the fire and, therefore, the insurance money that would be paid to the company that fought it.

So let me see if I have this straight: You're against small, municipally controlled WiFi networks but you're in favor of large, government subsidized and authorized Telcos developing these networks?

No, I'm just as opposed to government granting monopoly authorization to telcos on the local loop. The only reason you don't see the same people complaining about this is that it's a fait accompli. It's better to fight the current battle on the current front than endlessly bemoan battles lost years ago. I'm not even saying that I want all fire departments to be private. I'm just objecting to your implied claim that fire protection inherently couldn't be provided without tax dollars when it currently /is/ so provided in many places.

Check out this, Al-Qaida blatently admits ownership of the car bombings. And they are in Iraq. Imagine that... On the positive note, we have more bullets then they have bodies to blow up. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646
Would the contras fall under this definition, or were they "freedom fighters"? How about the mujahadin in Afghanistan, led by arch-enemy Osama Bin Laden? When they won the cold war for you, were they terrorists or freedom fighters?
At the time, it was a good idea to hire the locals to do your bidding. After all, they know the culture and terrain better than we do. And they too were against Soviet occupation.
Soon after, Osama quickly went from friend to foe. That backstabber rat-fucked us good. Not to mention his oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan was pushing the envelope of what humanity would stand for. Is it any wonder we came down on him like the wrath of God?
I thought you tried that once already. Given the outcome of the last attempt, I'm not sure if the South Koreans are too keen for you to have another go. Especially as your occupying force has been driving around drunk and running over 6 year old girls recently. But hey! Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, much less a full scale all Asia war!
Hey, that was a cheap shot! But none the less, those solders responsible have been dealt with in the name of civil justice as were those responsible for the heinous acts of torture on the POWs just recently. Truth be know; humanity will always have its wild animals in the proverbial garden. Sad, but true.
As for N. Korea, we may just end up bidding our time. They are on the verge of total political breakdown via power struggle. Honestly, I would not be surprised if Kim becomes assassinated. Hell, many attemps might have been made by his own gards already. I guess will never know until the fall of the N. Korean regime comes to fruition and books are written by those that live there to tell the tale. Should such a scenario take place that is...
Ahh, but influence is not the same word as impeach. But don't let that inconvenient fact stop you.
When the government does not listen to the majority of the people, revolutions have historically been known to happen. I guess it all depends on how much influence is needed. Either by voice, or by arms.
Clearly. Californians were absolutely outraged at the power outages, which were eventually traced back to one corrupt, soon to be bankrupt company and their Republican cronies. But of course it was Davis's fault. And who wouldn't vote for the Terminator?
You couldn't be more wrong. And I should know the facts on this issue. I was an employee for Sempra Energy in the Houston TX branch office back in 1998-2000. The main office of course is based in San Diego CA. Basically, we dealed in the market of deregulated energy, setting up contracts for the retrofit of lighting, and HVAC system for building owners to save energy. So rather then me having to type the real reasons till my fingers bleed, I've provided a more credible link that also explains the issue better then I could. http://www.rppi.org/electricity/ebrief011001.html

SPECTRUM PRIVATIZATION: Removing the Barriers to Telecommunications Competition

The paper discusses the mechanisms for returning of the nationalized resource to private hands, modeled on experiences in other countries.

See section II.2 in SPECTRUM PRIVATIZATION: Removing the Barriers to Telecommunications Competition, a Reason Public Policy Institute paper.

See section II.2 in SPECTRUM PRIVATIZATION: Removing the Barriers to Telecommunications Competition, a Reason Public Policy Institute paper.

Those of you who think that "electricity is too important to leave to the private sector" should look into the work of last year's Nobel prize winner in Economics, Vernon Smith. One of his pet topics is electricity deregulation. He's the pioneer in experimental economics, and he advocates deregulation (the real kind, not the fake kind as in California).

Vernon Smith Economics

Those of you who think that "electricity is too important to leave to the private sector" should look into the work of last year's Nobel prize winner in Economics, Vernon Smith. One of his pet topics is electricity deregulation.

Vernon Smith Economics

In addition to publishing Reason magazine, the Reason Foundation supports a lot of public policy studies through the Reason Public Policy Institute, which is basically a libertarian-leaning think-tank. It's not surprising they'd have a postltion on this issue; they have a position on every transportation-related issue one could imagine, and Poole is probably more politically savvy than most of the other signatories.

Here's the RPPI's take on general transportation, and surface transportation.

In addition to publishing Reason magazine, the Reason Foundation supports a lot of public policy studies through the Reason Public Policy Institute, which is basically a libertarian-leaning think-tank. It's not surprising they'd have a postltion on this issue; they have a position on every transportation-related issue one could imagine, and Poole is probably more politically savvy than most of the other signatories.

Here's the RPPI's take on general transportation, and surface transportation.

In addition to publishing Reason magazine, the Reason Foundation supports a lot of public policy studies through the Reason Public Policy Institute, which is basically a libertarian-leaning think-tank. It's not surprising they'd have a postltion on this issue; they have a position on every transportation-related issue one could imagine, and Poole is probably more politically savvy than most of the other signatories.

Here's the RPPI's take on general transportation, and surface transportation.

Enron's "manipulations" were simply using the exitsing rules the California state government set up. CA paid Enron to do things that hurt CA's energy supply. Check out this examination. Had a private company been handling the electrical distribution in CA, they might have wised up to the situation a bit faster.

Let's not go off the deep end though, the "manipulations" were minor - CA has a real electricity supply/transport infrastructure problem. It is spelled NIMBY/socialism. Diesel trains make a better choice than building a new generator only because you don't have to hold local hearings and do an enironmental impact statement to use them.

Government must let go of the "commanding heights" of the economy - power is #1.