I didn't say PV was better than wind, but I did say that they can both be used in the same place, sharing components (even if just structural and transmission infrastructure) for better economics. In fact, there might even be wind enhancement from solar panels casting shadow, and resulting temperature differentials for pressure gradients.
I did say "Prices of solar PV will likely not drop to viable costs", and then I detailed how PV research has been left to stagnate for over a quarter century. Where is the reason that PV tech can't get big improvements with new R&D, into exactly the kinds of materials where the past quarter-century has seen a revolution? Among the especially motivated, even wider field of players?
Your numbers are interesting. If PV is really early-1980s tech, but still only 3-4x as expensive as 21st Century wind tech, then I'd expect serious modern R&D to offer at least a 50% improvement, if not 200%, within the first 3-10 years. And since most PV costs are in manufacture and deployment, while most inefficiency is in transmission (after the initial 85% loss in DC conversion) I'd expect that another 50-100% improvement just from a more distributed, localized grid rather than the brittle, centralized petrofuel/AC we use today.
The PV subsidies would be good if invested in making the tech more economical, not just more worthy of subsidies. How much would petrofuels or nukes cost without their subsidies (all the way up to "national security" costs)? And if invested in making wind deployments generate even more power, multi-mode.
Can you back that up? Is the current Apache without modules (but with interfaces) truly factored to nothing but the required HTTP/1.1 responder? I haven't looked at the code since I distributed one of the early patches (before it was even called "Apache"), but I think it includes more than just the minimum.
The point of a minimal HTTP server would be to factor out all standards support except TCP/IP (if that) - even HTTP could be a module. I didn't say people are reinventing HTTP/Javascript/HTML, though they do. I just want to know why new HTTP servers nearly always require rewriting new code to support those standards, when there are existing modules that could be reused - if the interfaces were reused by the new servers.
Interesting reports on floating wind turbines. Especially with so many people complaining in reply to my posts that they're impossible - just because their imagination is too limited to think about them.
But how are you so sure that "Prices of solar PV will likely not drop to viable costs"? The materials research into PV has barely begun - mostly stalled since a brief spike ended over a quarter centry ago. Before the semiconductor revolution had really exploded, and reached such huge scale economies. Or compared to the old energy tech's now obvious costs and threatening disappearance, which should motivate a lot of investment by a lot of new global players. Unless there's some other macroeconomics or physics in the way, I'd expect PV's total lifecycle energy costs to beat petrofuel (and therefore nukes, too), and probably the less mature, more complex mechanical techs like wind/tidal or maybe even biomass. Though, as I pointed out in my "solar windmill platform", there's plenty of combination uses to harvest the KW:m^2 falling at solar Noon on the Earth, so long as the PV manufacturing/maintenance/disposal cycle is cheap enough.
You claimed that Bush shouldn't be impeached, because other presidents have done the kinds of crimes that he did. I refuted (with facts) that they hadn't done what he has done - that "even the two crimes I mentioned" are unprecedented, which you had denied in general. That's not a strawman, though apparently you can't tell the difference from a simple rebuttal.
You're the one raising the bar to impeachment. You still haven't answered which crimes should cause impeachment. So I'm justified in saying that you're raising it to an unlimited height that eliminates impeachment as a Constitutional remedy.
You are rewriting my words backwards, arguing the reverse of what the facts show, fallaciously excluding the middle, willfully ignoring the consequences of your argument, while baselessly accusing me of posing a strawman. And I'm supposed to take your arguments on Constitutional law seriously?
Web Server Primitives
on
Mongrel Shortcuts
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's a difference between a mere httpd (HTTP protocol server) and a "Web Server" that must include one. I wish there were a truly minimal httpd written in very portable code like Ruby, Perl or Java, that could use existing webserver plugins like Apache's and, say, WebSphere's, without modification. Just install (perhaps recompile cross-platform), and get the incremental features. With the same data formats, APIs and even typical bug behavior.
Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every time we reinvent the car?
That's why I didn't disagree with the article's main focus, "The Dangers to the Server of Improper Cookie Use by the Client". Even though that's what the ambiguous Slashdot story headline should have read.
And why I did point out the authors did mention that cookies aren't as scary in some ways as some try to say.
I know I write long posts. They're still not usually designed as comprehensive reviews of the entire story they discuss. Especially when they don't say they are.
Do you know how Congress works? Especially the now departing (but not lamented) Republican "Contract" Congress? They abused their majority to rewrite, abuse and selectively enforce rules that excluded minority Democrats from any representation, even in the nearly 50:50% proportions they controlled. To an unprecedented degree.
Democrats are no saints. They certainly do their share of the screwing. But theirs has been sustainable. Under Republican rule, Democrats had to trade votes to Republicans, including just for shows of "bipartisanship" engineered by Republicans, just to get crumbs. Which of course they shared mostly with their own corrupt cronies who bribe^Wdonate to their campaigns.
But this has been a Republican Congress, with a Republican president, in lockstep, stomping all over minority rights. Republcians take the blame.
Snap out of the Republican smokescreen that "they're both guilty" and realize the worst crooks have been raping us, even using the manageable crooks to hide their dirty hands.
Religion and politics, like any serious investment, take money to make money.
You are oversimplifying this relatively simple dynamic into false choices and excluded middles.
The truth is cheaper than lies in anything but the immediate short term, and often not even then. But lies are more profitable, if the returns on the investment can be protected from their true costs.
No, not all modern presidents have done even those two crimes I mentioned. Bush has.
Nixon's CIA wiretapping was the abuse that Congress wrote the FISA to stop. Nixon didn't run nearly as much surveillance as has Bush, and it wasn't specifically illegal at the time Nixon did it. Even so, Nixon avoided impeachment for that crime, among others, only by resigning.
Lyndon Johnson lied us deeper into Vietnam, with his Gulf of Tonkin fabrications and lies. That was a much less serious example, but he still probably should have been impeached. Bush's lies incessantly about Iraq's WMD, Qaeda "connections", even lies about "Niger yellowcake" in the State of the Union Address to Congress, among thousands of connected crimes like outing covert CIA WMD control agents to blackmail an ex Iraq ambassador.
Bush knew those lies and crimes were against the law. Even if not, that sounds like an impeachable offense: reckless endangerment of the Constitution and the people (us) it protects. Because they're all obviously wrong.
Unprecedented extent and degree. Impeachable. Overwhelming evidence. If there's any doubt, let's have the debate in the Senate, like the Constitution requires. Dismissing it because it's been done before is exactly what's broken in our system: the people don't demand the minimum accountability from our officials. Letting Bush off is the latest, worst precedent for imperial presidential power. No way.
Seawater is mostly H2O. Air is mostly N2, some O2, and 0.04% CO2. Ethanol is C2H6O.
The windmill can power electrolysis, which cracks the (pairs of) H2O into (2) H2 and O2. CO2 can be cracked with other processes, including photosynthesis (or synthetic analogs). That means the platforms can take H2O + CO2 -> C2H6O.
The cracking process might not be the most efficient, especially splitting CO2. The windmill might be used to power extra lights (and climate control) that grow biomass, like bluegreen algae which are about 10% efficient. Those can be fermeted into ethanol.
If economics really worked as rationally as "free market" proponents claim, then every population cluster would feature a coop that invested in the rooftops and sold the energy to the houses and back to the grid.
Actually it seems to be doubling every three months, though that accelerated this past Summer. And "for years" since mid-2005. That's about 2^6, which is about the couple-few hundred spams I get each day.
I wouldn't want to be my ISP, anyway - or I would be:).
It's "Common Gateway Interface". Even when there's no CGI script to consume them, they're part of the CGI environment generated by the HTTP server. And "CGI" is a familiar term, especially to people who could use interpretation of this hysterical article.
How would Greenpeace's irresponsible public statements about bad measurements, that were admitted before Shell even released its own 3rd party audit, affect a plan to use Brent Spar as a windmill platform?
Who said Bush invented it? I don't think I've ever given Bush credit for a single original idea in his entire life - perhaps his most essential characteristic.
Bush (his "team", really - he's just a spokesmodel) has, however, created unprecedented (in the US) secrecy and classifications, even classifying info long public. Hand in hand with unprecedented (American) fascism.
Just because his crimes aren't new doesn't mean we shouldn't care about them. To the contrary, the new ones are more alarming, precisely because they've been tried, and often succeeded, and we can tell what they mean. And, most importantly, because we have to deal with them now, for real, not with the luxury of hindsight, having survived it before.
So like I said: Impeach Bush Now. TODAY. Or starting January 3, 2007, when he's actually lost his ablative coating of House Republican majority.
The "friendly" article does start off sensibly, mentioning that "Cookies are not programs, they can't read your personal data, and they don't cause spam.". OK, main scary cookie myths put aside.
FTFA:
This value pair is my personal identification code that can be used to track my movements across the internet and build a profile about my surfing habits. This is possible because a cookie can be read at any time by the domain that owns it. As a result, when I visit Slashdot.org, doubleclick.net will attempt to read its cookie that is on my computer. This will provide doubleclick.net with my id value, and their database will be updated. In other words, they now know that I like to visit Informit.com and Slashdot.org. Already their profile on my surfing habits can tell them I am probably a computer geek.
That section about the "personal identification code" talk is very weaselly. It makes cookies sound like any website can read a cookie on your computer that's flagged as "owned" by that website at any time. Cyrus Peikari and Seth Fogie (article authors) leave out the important, necessary link: the DoubleClick cookie can be read only when your computer makes an outgoing HTTP connection to DoubleClick. Like when a DoubleClick banner ad is included in a Slashdot page's HTML. Which HTTP request includes a CGI param (REFERER) pointing to the Slashdot page from which the IMG tag instructed the computer to pull the DoubleClick banner image. That's how Doubleclick gets its cookie, and the context that you visited a Slashdot page.
DoubleClick cannot read its cookie any other time, when there's no HTTP connection from your computer to DoubleClick. Like all the rest of the pages on which DoubleClick has no banner or other "self-clicking" link. There are web bugs, invisible images tags embedded in other pages just to hit their server with the REFERER of the page triggering their bug, updating your computer's cookie with their counter (etc). But they cannot be read "at any time".
Besides, the cookie is a nonessential part of this snooping. DoubleClick doesn't need to keep its counter on your computer - the IMG hit can update its server-side counter DB. It can ID you, though not as precisely, by your IP# and other CGI parameters you send with every HTTP request. Or DoubleClick's deal with, say, Slashdot, is that Slashdot encode the DoubleClick banner IMG tags the Slashdot server sends you with its pages with a unique ID, like your Slashdot userid. ACs and public terminals mostly escape, but they're not really targets for these marketdroids.
And you can turn off cookies in any non-retarded browser, making them anonymous (encoded IMG URLs are much harder - see?). And you can inspect the cookies stored on your computer.
All these issues were discussed in great detail by the HTTP Working Group as we invented cookies, almost a decade ago. Some people were philosophically opposed to letting untrusted servers store any data on users' computers. Though every page, every image is stored on users' computers, after retrieval for presentation. And we realized that stopping cookies would mean only people with money to make "cross-site" deals and maintain large centralized databases would get the power to exploit cookies for tracking. So the cost would motivate more profit-exploitation of the tech. Ultimately only profiteers would track you, and there'd be plenty of them, without even the local control that cookies offer. And the entire Web would lose even voluntary easy tracking of intersession client state.
We decided to make cookies simple and use them. They're mostly harmless - a good balance with the huge benefit they deliver all day long in the Web Era. But I guess there's still profit to be made by scaring people on the Web, like the naive "technologists" to whom this InformIT article is directed, with incorrect cookie hysteria, and offers to help protect us.
Since the Republican Congress "defeated spam" with their CAN-SPAM Act, I've noticed my incoming spam double every month for years. While I notice that the antispam organizations keep folding, or even getting shut down.
Cory Ondrejka, Vice President of Product Development, has stated that a while after everything has been standardized, both the client and the server will be released as open source.
1. Throughout 2006 the built-in instant messaging system will be replaced with Jabber 2. The current proprietary LSL virtual machine will be replaced with Mono 3. uBrowser, an OpenGL port of the Gecko rendering engine [...] will also be used to display webpages on any of the surfaces of any 3D object the user creates.
libsecondlife is the SourceForge project I was thinking of.
The British are experts in undersea cables, having laid them literally around the world since the Victorian Age.
We have the technology.
But I do think that windmills all suffer from electric transmission losses (up to 30-50%), located far from the humans who consume their power. It's one reason I prefer coating every roof with solar panels, in a localized grid that minimizes transmission.
But I wonder whether these windmills could be more efficient driving seawater and air through a cracker to generate ethanol. We've already got a huge fleet of barges which could transport it very efficiently to existing infrastructure. Cheap, clean, domestic power that actually sucks extra CO2 from the atmosphere (generating extra O2). Why aren't the oil shipping corporations all over this new market of local clients for their services?
Slashdot Mirror
Enron. Ken Lay is dead, but Bush still hasn't killed himself, so it could happen again.
I didn't say PV was better than wind, but I did say that they can both be used in the same place, sharing components (even if just structural and transmission infrastructure) for better economics.
In fact, there might even be wind enhancement from solar panels casting shadow, and resulting temperature differentials for pressure gradients.
I did say "Prices of solar PV will likely not drop to viable costs", and then I detailed how PV research has been left to stagnate for over a quarter century. Where is the reason that PV tech can't get big improvements with new R&D, into exactly the kinds of materials where the past quarter-century has seen a revolution? Among the especially motivated, even wider field of players?
Your numbers are interesting. If PV is really early-1980s tech, but still only 3-4x as expensive as 21st Century wind tech, then I'd expect serious modern R&D to offer at least a 50% improvement, if not 200%, within the first 3-10 years. And since most PV costs are in manufacture and deployment, while most inefficiency is in transmission (after the initial 85% loss in DC conversion) I'd expect that another 50-100% improvement just from a more distributed, localized grid rather than the brittle, centralized petrofuel/AC we use today.
The PV subsidies would be good if invested in making the tech more economical, not just more worthy of subsidies. How much would petrofuels or nukes cost without their subsidies (all the way up to "national security" costs)? And if invested in making wind deployments generate even more power, multi-mode.
Quit your obsession with my penis, Anonymous pervert Coward.
If he hung his wet laundry on that chandelier's hot bulbs, he could save $25 a month.
Can you back that up? Is the current Apache without modules (but with interfaces) truly factored to nothing but the required HTTP/1.1 responder? I haven't looked at the code since I distributed one of the early patches (before it was even called "Apache"), but I think it includes more than just the minimum.
The point of a minimal HTTP server would be to factor out all standards support except TCP/IP (if that) - even HTTP could be a module. I didn't say people are reinventing HTTP/Javascript/HTML, though they do. I just want to know why new HTTP servers nearly always require rewriting new code to support those standards, when there are existing modules that could be reused - if the interfaces were reused by the new servers.
Interesting reports on floating wind turbines. Especially with so many people complaining in reply to my posts that they're impossible - just because their imagination is too limited to think about them.
But how are you so sure that "Prices of solar PV will likely not drop to viable costs"? The materials research into PV has barely begun - mostly stalled since a brief spike ended over a quarter centry ago. Before the semiconductor revolution had really exploded, and reached such huge scale economies. Or compared to the old energy tech's now obvious costs and threatening disappearance, which should motivate a lot of investment by a lot of new global players. Unless there's some other macroeconomics or physics in the way, I'd expect PV's total lifecycle energy costs to beat petrofuel (and therefore nukes, too), and probably the less mature, more complex mechanical techs like wind/tidal or maybe even biomass. Though, as I pointed out in my "solar windmill platform", there's plenty of combination uses to harvest the KW:m^2 falling at solar Noon on the Earth, so long as the PV manufacturing/maintenance/disposal cycle is cheap enough.
You've got it exactly backwards.
You claimed that Bush shouldn't be impeached, because other presidents have done the kinds of crimes that he did. I refuted (with facts) that they hadn't done what he has done - that "even the two crimes I mentioned" are unprecedented, which you had denied in general. That's not a strawman, though apparently you can't tell the difference from a simple rebuttal.
You're the one raising the bar to impeachment. You still haven't answered which crimes should cause impeachment. So I'm justified in saying that you're raising it to an unlimited height that eliminates impeachment as a Constitutional remedy.
You are rewriting my words backwards, arguing the reverse of what the facts show, fallaciously excluding the middle, willfully ignoring the consequences of your argument, while baselessly accusing me of posing a strawman. And I'm supposed to take your arguments on Constitutional law seriously?
There's a difference between a mere httpd (HTTP protocol server) and a "Web Server" that must include one. I wish there were a truly minimal httpd written in very portable code like Ruby, Perl or Java, that could use existing webserver plugins like Apache's and, say, WebSphere's, without modification. Just install (perhaps recompile cross-platform), and get the incremental features. With the same data formats, APIs and even typical bug behavior.
Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every time we reinvent the car?
That's why I didn't disagree with the article's main focus, "The Dangers to the Server of Improper Cookie Use by the Client". Even though that's what the ambiguous Slashdot story headline should have read.
And why I did point out the authors did mention that cookies aren't as scary in some ways as some try to say.
I know I write long posts. They're still not usually designed as comprehensive reviews of the entire story they discuss. Especially when they don't say they are.
Do you know how Congress works? Especially the now departing (but not lamented) Republican "Contract" Congress? They abused their majority to rewrite, abuse and selectively enforce rules that excluded minority Democrats from any representation, even in the nearly 50:50% proportions they controlled. To an unprecedented degree.
Democrats are no saints. They certainly do their share of the screwing. But theirs has been sustainable. Under Republican rule, Democrats had to trade votes to Republicans, including just for shows of "bipartisanship" engineered by Republicans, just to get crumbs. Which of course they shared mostly with their own corrupt cronies who bribe^Wdonate to their campaigns.
But this has been a Republican Congress, with a Republican president, in lockstep, stomping all over minority rights. Republcians take the blame.
Snap out of the Republican smokescreen that "they're both guilty" and realize the worst crooks have been raping us, even using the manageable crooks to hide their dirty hands.
Religion and politics, like any serious investment, take money to make money.
You are oversimplifying this relatively simple dynamic into false choices and excluded middles.
The truth is cheaper than lies in anything but the immediate short term, and often not even then. But lies are more profitable, if the returns on the investment can be protected from their true costs.
No, not all modern presidents have done even those two crimes I mentioned. Bush has.
Nixon's CIA wiretapping was the abuse that Congress wrote the FISA to stop. Nixon didn't run nearly as much surveillance as has Bush, and it wasn't specifically illegal at the time Nixon did it. Even so, Nixon avoided impeachment for that crime, among others, only by resigning.
Lyndon Johnson lied us deeper into Vietnam, with his Gulf of Tonkin fabrications and lies. That was a much less serious example, but he still probably should have been impeached. Bush's lies incessantly about Iraq's WMD, Qaeda "connections", even lies about "Niger yellowcake" in the State of the Union Address to Congress, among thousands of connected crimes like outing covert CIA WMD control agents to blackmail an ex Iraq ambassador.
Bush knew those lies and crimes were against the law. Even if not, that sounds like an impeachable offense: reckless endangerment of the Constitution and the people (us) it protects. Because they're all obviously wrong.
Unprecedented extent and degree. Impeachable. Overwhelming evidence. If there's any doubt, let's have the debate in the Senate, like the Constitution requires. Dismissing it because it's been done before is exactly what's broken in our system: the people don't demand the minimum accountability from our officials. Letting Bush off is the latest, worst precedent for imperial presidential power. No way.
Seawater is mostly H2O. Air is mostly N2, some O2, and 0.04% CO2. Ethanol is C2H6O.
The windmill can power electrolysis, which cracks the (pairs of) H2O into (2) H2 and O2. CO2 can be cracked with other processes, including photosynthesis (or synthetic analogs). That means the platforms can take H2O + CO2 -> C2H6O.
The cracking process might not be the most efficient, especially splitting CO2. The windmill might be used to power extra lights (and climate control) that grow biomass, like bluegreen algae which are about 10% efficient. Those can be fermeted into ethanol.
Again, who said we should impeach Bush out of "partisan bitterness"? How about breaking serious laws, like FISA? Or lying us into invading Iraq?
What do you think we impeach a president for? Only when we find a dead body in his arms, and the president confesses?
If economics really worked as rationally as "free market" proponents claim, then every population cluster would feature a coop that invested in the rooftops and sold the energy to the houses and back to the grid.
Still a good biz opportunity.
Actually it seems to be doubling every three months, though that accelerated this past Summer. And "for years" since mid-2005. That's about 2^6, which is about the couple-few hundred spams I get each day.
:).
I wouldn't want to be my ISP, anyway - or I would be
It's "Common Gateway Interface". Even when there's no CGI script to consume them, they're part of the CGI environment generated by the HTTP server. And "CGI" is a familiar term, especially to people who could use interpretation of this hysterical article.
How would Greenpeace's irresponsible public statements about bad measurements, that were admitted before Shell even released its own 3rd party audit, affect a plan to use Brent Spar as a windmill platform?
Who said Bush invented it? I don't think I've ever given Bush credit for a single original idea in his entire life - perhaps his most essential characteristic.
Bush (his "team", really - he's just a spokesmodel) has, however, created unprecedented (in the US) secrecy and classifications, even classifying info long public. Hand in hand with unprecedented (American) fascism.
Just because his crimes aren't new doesn't mean we shouldn't care about them. To the contrary, the new ones are more alarming, precisely because they've been tried, and often succeeded, and we can tell what they mean. And, most importantly, because we have to deal with them now, for real, not with the luxury of hindsight, having survived it before.
So like I said: Impeach Bush Now. TODAY. Or starting January 3, 2007, when he's actually lost his ablative coating of House Republican majority.
Only if you're too stupid to anchor/stabilize them in every direction except up and down.
FTFA:
That section about the "personal identification code" talk is very weaselly. It makes cookies sound like any website can read a cookie on your computer that's flagged as "owned" by that website at any time. Cyrus Peikari and Seth Fogie (article authors) leave out the important, necessary link: the DoubleClick cookie can be read only when your computer makes an outgoing HTTP connection to DoubleClick. Like when a DoubleClick banner ad is included in a Slashdot page's HTML. Which HTTP request includes a CGI param (REFERER) pointing to the Slashdot page from which the IMG tag instructed the computer to pull the DoubleClick banner image. That's how Doubleclick gets its cookie, and the context that you visited a Slashdot page.
DoubleClick cannot read its cookie any other time, when there's no HTTP connection from your computer to DoubleClick. Like all the rest of the pages on which DoubleClick has no banner or other "self-clicking" link. There are web bugs, invisible images tags embedded in other pages just to hit their server with the REFERER of the page triggering their bug, updating your computer's cookie with their counter (etc). But they cannot be read "at any time".
Besides, the cookie is a nonessential part of this snooping. DoubleClick doesn't need to keep its counter on your computer - the IMG hit can update its server-side counter DB. It can ID you, though not as precisely, by your IP# and other CGI parameters you send with every HTTP request. Or DoubleClick's deal with, say, Slashdot, is that Slashdot encode the DoubleClick banner IMG tags the Slashdot server sends you with its pages with a unique ID, like your Slashdot userid. ACs and public terminals mostly escape, but they're not really targets for these marketdroids.
And you can turn off cookies in any non-retarded browser, making them anonymous (encoded IMG URLs are much harder - see?). And you can inspect the cookies stored on your computer.
All these issues were discussed in great detail by the HTTP Working Group as we invented cookies, almost a decade ago. Some people were philosophically opposed to letting untrusted servers store any data on users' computers. Though every page, every image is stored on users' computers, after retrieval for presentation. And we realized that stopping cookies would mean only people with money to make "cross-site" deals and maintain large centralized databases would get the power to exploit cookies for tracking. So the cost would motivate more profit-exploitation of the tech. Ultimately only profiteers would track you, and there'd be plenty of them, without even the local control that cookies offer. And the entire Web would lose even voluntary easy tracking of intersession client state.
We decided to make cookies simple and use them. They're mostly harmless - a good balance with the huge benefit they deliver all day long in the Web Era. But I guess there's still profit to be made by scaring people on the Web, like the naive "technologists" to whom this InformIT article is directed, with incorrect cookie hysteria, and offers to help protect us.
That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Since the Republican Congress "defeated spam" with their CAN-SPAM Act, I've noticed my incoming spam double every month for years. While I notice that the antispam organizations keep folding, or even getting shut down.
libsecondlife is the SourceForge project I was thinking of.
Your AC comment was posted from the Flyover States of the US, no doubt.
The British are experts in undersea cables, having laid them literally around the world since the Victorian Age.
We have the technology.
But I do think that windmills all suffer from electric transmission losses (up to 30-50%), located far from the humans who consume their power. It's one reason I prefer coating every roof with solar panels, in a localized grid that minimizes transmission.
But I wonder whether these windmills could be more efficient driving seawater and air through a cracker to generate ethanol. We've already got a huge fleet of barges which could transport it very efficiently to existing infrastructure. Cheap, clean, domestic power that actually sucks extra CO2 from the atmosphere (generating extra O2). Why aren't the oil shipping corporations all over this new market of local clients for their services?