Obama's energy boost

steve smyth — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:55:18 GMT

iacta alea est...
the future of the US economy rides on enertech...
I cannot wait for wild-cat steam vent speculators to start drilling and detonating the ocean floor...
watch out for the GeoEngineering madmen with government supported credentials...think Werner Von Braun...
what's done now lasts way friggin' long...don'tcha think?

Obama's energy boost

Richard, La Habra, CA — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:25:55 GMT

there's no such thing as clean coal

Obama's energy boost

Abarafi, Santa Cruz, CA — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:34:02 GMT

If thinking America invented the automobile is Obama's biggest error, then we are in very good shape. We may not have invented it, but we certainly mass-produced it and made owning one practical by developing the fuel and road infrastructure it required. After eight years of small-minded vision, it feels great to be immersed in big ideas, again. It was heartening to see on MSNBC the blue and red lines practically on top of one another, and in positive territory for all of Obama's speech. There's hope for us yet.

Obama's energy boost

mark hendricks, oakland ca — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:00:02 GMT

OK the US reinvented the auto industry. Let's do it again.

Obama's energy boost

North Hollywood, CA — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:28:01 GMT

ALAN! It doesn't matter if Volcano Monitoring's worth it! You're missing the point.

It's a stimulus package, and I supported it!
and I would support the volcano monitoring if it comes up in some sort of science research package.

BUT every dollar of stimulus, or as much as possible should be devoted towards jobs and the economy, green jobs, infrastructure jobs, efficiency jobs, technology jobs...

Say we have a great bill for science research and development, would it make sense that a bunch of the little money the gov can still spend on that go towards some fishing class at a learning annex?

Obama's energy boost

Kerry Bradshaw — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:14:56 GMT

Obama demonstrated once again that he has good reasons for hiding his college records. He also claimed that "we built the trnascontinental railroad while fighting the Civil War." Sorry barrack, but British speculators provided the funds to build that railroad, and we didn't build it during the War - it was completed in 1869, over 4 years after the end of the war. We also didn't create the world's largest middle class by sending our veterans to college after the war via the GI bill. The fact is that the war destroyed the economies of every nation except the US, which allowed our economy to explode with near monopolies on everything. THAT is what created our large middle class. Obama needs to go back to college if he insists upon "educating" our public about our history. HE is the one who needs the education. It's hard to believe that Obama is clearly dumber than Bush No 2, but the evidence is pretty persuasive that this is the case.

[ALAN ADDS: Hmm, it appears that work on the transcontinental railroad was authorized in 1862 and ground was broken in 1863, during the depths of the Civil War. And if you're going to argue that the G.I. Bill was not a factor in the rise of a postwar middle class, you're going to have to deal with historians as well as the U.S. military:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26226

[I can see already it's going to be a long four (or eight) years.]

Obama's energy boost

Alan Boyle — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:26:10 GMT

Hi, North! ;-) I think the point was to look for worthwhile "shovel-ready" projects, with priority given to projects that could promote infrastructure repair and enviro-friendly technology. The USGS projects (which take in much more than seismic monitoring) should help build up scientific infrastructure, protect infrastructure and further environmental understanding. Here's how AAAS describes the funding in their overview of science stimulus spending:

"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Interior, $140 million for repair and restoration of science facilities and laboratory equipment for USGS’ nationwide network of federal laboratories."

Jindal is pulling out a subcategory for volcano monitoring equipment just in the interest of making the expense look bad. I understand that ... it's politics as usual.

Here are links to the info from AAAS:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/stim09c.htm

... And a story that details what the money really goes for:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29389625/

Obama's energy boost

Flaming Pope, Where I Sleep, US — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:14:55 GMT

@ Kerry Bradshaw. Please don't flame someone because of some historical error. It doesn't relate well to the topic which manners. And it's that sort of attitude which is arrogant. i.e. Half of my professors can't write one complete sentence without error, but ask them about physics and they'll explode your head within 2 minutes.

A proper argument would be to flame his policies directly or question his methods, but to brown nose around until you find something minute as the railroad, which has little to do with renewable energy, that will just misled the public - please keep in mind that the general public have the thought process of 5/6th graders. You have the right to respect/argue the opposition, but misleading the public view over some unrelated topic, that's just being a douche to civilization. Though you may correct him, have a larger point then just flaming his entire being because of some small historical error.

I would just like to add in my opinion on the current matter. I find it odd how he hasn't mentioned recycling and reprocessing as it's got to do with renewable resources. More to the point, solar panels are expensive and take a lot of energy to produce. However, what's not mentioned is how fragile the panels are, and what happens to them when they break- they go straight to the dumpster even though most of them still work and could be reprocessed and resold.

It would also be nice if he took the renewable concept and expanded it to include recycling and reprocessing. It would really help in creating a lot of profitable jobs, help ease the dependence on imported raw material, and the most obvious we would be literally effecting how the world looks at the US. If the US were to start a national recycling/renewable energy program, many more states around the world would follow suit.

Obama's energy boost

Kevin, Kansas City, MO — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:17:19 GMT

And actually the United States wasn't the first to invent solar technology. It was first developed by a Frenchman and then the first ones built were made by the Americans. So where did Obama go to school?

[ALAN ADDS: American Charles Fritts is credited with inventing the solar cell:]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/220537/Charles-Fritts

[To argue that Becquerel invented solar cell technology because he discovered the photovoltaic effect would be akin to arguing that Rutherford invented the atomic bomb because he split the atom, at least to my mind. ... and if you're seriously asking where Obama went to school, the answer is Occidental College, Columbia University (one of my alma maters) and Harvard.]

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167

Obama's energy boost

North Hollywood, CA — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:46:46 GMT

Alan, I thank you for your response, I did read the links. I agree with you on the basis that it seems like a worthwhile program and how maybe Jindal dismissed the program, as "wasteful." I think there's greater point he made(probably unintentional).

I think we just disagree on the process of putting a program like that through the government. I just feel that when you look at the Economic Recovery Package as a whole; what's allocated to green energy, infrastructure, new energy grid, tax breaks and so forth. Then you look at how much as a country we need to actually make a dent in any of those arenas; you see a fairly sizable gap.

A lot of us feel a bit cheated when we see money from the package(that I personally supported and had such high hopes for) go toward programs, that should be funded mind you, but don't provide any real elements of recovery or economic assistance. I want every penny to be devoted towards providing a better economy, and getting us out of this mess.

The program sounds well worth the money, I just wish I didn't take up some of the limited money available towards the energy, and economic recovery.

Obama's energy boost

Paul Fennimore, N Lauderdale, Fl. — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:06:29 GMT

Strange that little or no mention with Obama or you folks here about Hydro Cell Tech which has been all over the internet ... (the splitting of oxygen and hydrogen by introducing a low voltage into water to produce hydrogen with no need for hydrogen storage) - I know it works - I built one myself and put it in my car .... from 14 mph to 29 mph - my cost $192.00

Obama's energy boost

Deb, Kansas City, KS — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:29:57 GMT

I am all for a stimulus but it has to be to create jobs. If we are for new energy sources and idependence then why was off-shore drilling eliminated fromthe package? Electric cars fine - but they need to be charged - we don't have chargers for them - they can only go 40 miles without a charge. And you need coal to make the electricity! We don't have the power grid to support electric cars. Double renewable jobs. Great. Did ya know there are only 77 renewable energy companies in the USA today with less than 20,000 employees. So we are spending what $45 billion on 77 companies and maybe creating 20,000 new jobs? Did you read how Japan and Germany had to give subsidies to people to use solar energy - coz it's too expensive - tho I believe the one we really should be spending money on. The point is, this all sounds nice, we pushed a bill through without clearly thinking about it - a bill no one read and not a single person who say how many jobs it creates. I think we all got ripped off.

Obama's energy boost

B. Nuna — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:44:08 GMT

Economy first, then green energy. If our economy fails, who'll be here to do the green stuff? Russia?? France??

Obama's energy boost

hajat ullah baig — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:03:05 GMT

dear editor,
we the small and third world countriies are waiting for big countries to produce things and provide it for us to use without contributing in struggling to learn from newly inventions. wa are also confused of meritocracy that the youngs would not reach to the inctitutions and universities to seek what he or she eagerto learn.
for the name of meritocracy the carateria remains tight as compared to how learning institutions are strong as what they expect. we need to encourage yougs to be part of contributor

Obama's energy boost

Roga, Mojave, CA — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:45:12 GMT

I'm so sick of Republicans continuing to dig their own political graves by complaining about the same crap they did for 8 years. One would look to them to provide a true alternative, but instead they're rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg, to paraphrase Steven Colbert. Complaining about $140M public safety expenditures when the congress and president are looting Americans to the tune of trillions is the same as being complicit. Which we all knew anyway, but I guess it's nice to have some reinforcement now and then.

Get what you can before the whole giant enchilada comes crashing down.

Obama's energy boost

rick — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:18:26 GMT

I fully support the development of renewable energy sources to power our country. They will be THE ONLY way America will have enough energy in the future! Fossil fuels pollute, plus we all know the effects that the price of oil has had on our economy over the years and there simply isn't enough oil left to drill in North America to meet our long term energy needs.

If Saudi Arabia and Dubai are ALREADY planning on how to power their countries and economines when THEIR oil runs out - WE SHOULD BE TOO!

Obama's energy boost

BMS, VA — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:59:26 GMT

Boyle. You idiot! Go get a gig in the global warming carbon credit farce. You can really brown nose Obama from there. When are you and the academic clowns going to get it? Politics and science don't mix! And you are especially bad at it.

Obama's energy boost

John Henson, Austin, Texas — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:40:14 GMT

Nuclear power and offshore drilling will of course be in the president's strategic energy plan. They are the quickest and most currently viable way to move toward energy independence.

But, to include them in the President's speech would have had today's headlines filled with acrid debate rather than discussions of innovation. President Obama clearly warned that each of us would be disappointed with some parts of his budget. We needed his speech to unify and inspire us to renewed confidence, no reignite the ideological debates we face. It accomplished that.

Seeing Captain Sullenberger in the distinguished audience was wonderfully appropriate. It honored an inspiring American hero who exemplified exactly the courage and steady calmness we need and have in President Obama.

Obama's energy boost

Eric, Salinas, CA — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:08:29 GMT

So sad that our country can't produce Lithium energy cells for cars in the quantities needed but South Korea can. Heckuva job Boy Georgie in letting our country lag behind the world in cutting edge energy production just so you and your thieving oil pals could make more money off of oil. More good manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced.

I hope that Obama gets his energy plan passed so that our country can move forward into the 21st century with 21st century energy production. Yeah it costs money but the investment will pay us back in spades in the future.

Go Green Power!

Obama's energy boost

Drustan Light, Dallas TX — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:23:12 GMT

I think at some point in the next hundred years we're going to see a huge change in the mentality of not only Americans, but the entire human race.

We are not a society of futurists ... yet.

That being said, I think we're entering a transition and I don't think Obama is the catalyst, its just coincidence. He's no Hari Seldon and this isn't the Foundation, but the impact of the stimulus has the possibility to be successful and its in the direction that the transition of mentality should take us anyway. Some of us are going to go kicking and screaming, and some of us are going bolt ahead with visions of that golden age in our heads.

Obama's energy boost

MONTCLAIR NJ — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:32:01 GMT

Obama was right on target about Green Energy.
However we really need to think out of the box here as well.We need new ideas and forward thinking.. I just read an article about creating star power here on earth. Plus I recently discovered a company called Energetics Technologies. They have a process called SuperWaveFusion, which could be a possible break through in cold fusion. I recently read that 2 independent labs have replicated this process, this is the type of new thinking we need!

Obama's energy boost

Joe_Kan — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:19:36 GMT

I usually like the MSNBC website for technology and science but this article appears to go a little beyond the facts and into the politics. I will take the bait. I belive our elected officials don't understand the ecomonics of energy - the cheaper source wins. If you want to make solar or wind the winners one must raise the cost of oil or artificially reduce the cost of wind/solar. Technology may change this in the future but those are the facts today. The best easy solution I can come up with is tax the IMPORTED energy (oil) significantly which will provide greater revenues, make alternate energy more competitive, and provide incentives to find the energy here. Notice I said imported energy not domestic. We need to keep this money for energy in our economy not help the economies of states that have a very different agenda from ours. Feel free to disagree but ask yourself the question - Would I pay a lot more for energy if it was cleaner/greener, domestic, or less convienient? Cleaner energy is out there if you really want it - are you seeking it out! Don't lie to yourself.

Obama's energy boost

steve smyth — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:31:38 GMT

scenario...
freezing to death from Global Warming...
we stop using fossil fuels and half Earth's population freezes to death during the transition...kinda rude, but think of all the problems solved in one fell swoop...
everyone is suggesting outside the box, revolutionary thinking...problem solved...next!

Obama's energy boost

Mike Behrendt, Oshkosh, WI — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:54:20 GMT

I would like to have the plans from Paul Fennimore from N. Lauderdale, FL to make hydrogen for my car.

Obama's energy boost

Mike, Memphis, TN — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:58:52 GMT

So, you don't think that upgradeing and replacing volcano monitoring equipment would help the economy? What about the labor involved in the process? Seems to me it would create\save jobs that otherwise might not be there for lack of funding! Bottomline is any money poured into any project is going to help the economy on the merits of the labor itself!

Obama's energy boost

Dave F. - Peotone IL — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:33:25 GMT

"Strange that little or no mention with Obama or you folks here about Hydro Cell Tech which has been all over the internet"

It's not strange at all, because it is a HOAX. Scientists have known for decades that splitting water produces hydrogen and oxygen. The problem is - as any first year chemistry student can tell you - is that splitting the H2O molecule using plain old electricity takes MORE energy than it produces. You put more in that you get out. That's a waste of energy!

You may certainly get improved gas mileage with your contraption. But it takes you more energy to do so than just filling up your tank with gasoline. You've essentially made your car a less efficient user of energy. It may use less GAS, but it still uses more ENERGY.

That's called a lose-lose proposition.

The closest I've seen anyone come to doing anything useful with splitting water is a Purdue University professor discovered that a gallium/aluminum alloy splits the water molecule rather nicely - but like any other fuel source (other than sun/wind/geothermal) it still requires recycling/replacement of the alloy. The cost was approaching competitive if done on a large scale, but it still takes energy to recycle all that gallium/aluminum just to get "free" hydrogen from water, and it would need to be done with alternative energy sources.

http://cleantech.com/news/1205/gallium-and-aluminum-tigers-in-your-ta

Now if someone were to take that idea and push it harder, we'd create some jobs, save the environment and get ourselves off foreign oil while still using a primarily internal combustion engine for transport. There's still hurdles to overcome, but it'd be a good start.

Obama's energy boost

kevin, little rock, ar — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:50:16 GMT

It's definitely a spending bill more than a stimulus bill. I'm sure many of the initiatives will help create jobs, but I sure smell a lot of pork.

Obama's energy boost

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:30:14 GMT

Jindal does have point that we do need to increase use of nuclear fission until we can develop nuclear fusion. The French reprocess spent fuel, and so should we to minimize waste and get more out of the fuel that was made.

I would hope that every building would have solar panels over the next 10 years. It is a start to reduce that amount of energy that power plants need to make during the day.

Obama's energy boost

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:51:14 GMT

"It's not strange at all, because it is a HOAX. Scientists have known for decades that splitting water produces hydrogen and oxygen. The problem is - as any first year chemistry student can tell you - is that splitting the H2O molecule using plain old electricity takes MORE energy than it produces. You put more in that you get out. That's a waste of energy!"

The laws of thermodynamics being what they are, of course it is. You've stated nothing new. Conventional engines don't (and no heat engine can ever hope to) get all the potential energy out of the petroleum-derived fuel they burn, either. But solar energy, directly or indirectly went into the production of the original biomass from which fossil fuels come, tens of millions of years ago, and we don't worry about the efficiency at with which that occurred. We weren't there and the Sun shines on Earth (then or today) whether we make use of it or not.

The point is, you can't have an indefinite extension cord back to your house (or directly to a hydro/nuclear/coal/solar/wind/SPS/whatever you prefer electric source) as you travel. So, if you want a vehicle to run on electricity, into what form (presumably chemical, but flywheels and even compressed air have value in some situations) do you covert that electricity that's portable and capable of re-conversion to electricity for use in vehicles?

The choices are pretty much batteries of one exotic composition or another (which also take a finite amount of energy to manufacture), or hydrogen (which is a challenge to store) to produce electricity, in combination with atmospheric oxygen in a fuel cell to power electric motors. (and with greater efficiency than heat engines)

It doesn't have to be 100% efficient (what is?), it just has to be *practical.*

Obama's energy boost

tim boards — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:06:31 GMT

nuclear fusion is the only way forward to continue with levels of consumption , does anyone know if the obama team are going to be pumping billions into this , the previous administration actually cut spending on fusion , this technology is the one technology that needs to have as much money as possible pumped into it , but I cannot see wether the stimulus bill is setting any money aside specifically for nuclear fusion projects such as ITER , from what I have seen this technology is the one that they should be pumping massive amounts into , wind solar sea etc wont come close to solving the problem

Obama's energy boost

Jal H Sacramento CA — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:10:40 GMT

Alan. "Just last month, the U.S. Army took delivery of its first NEVs. They're expected to save millions of dollars in fuel costs". Why didn't the article mention that the US Air Force has been using the same 'GEM' NEVs since 2002?? I have seen hundreds of NEVs and other 'electric vehicles like the ZAP Zebra in use at Air Force Bases from Ohio to California

Obama's energy boost

Dave F., Peotone IL — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:10:53 GMT

"The choices are pretty much batteries of one exotic composition or another (which also take a finite amount of energy to manufacture), or hydrogen (which is a challenge to store) to produce electricity, in combination with atmospheric oxygen in a fuel cell to power electric motors. (and with greater efficiency than heat engines)

It doesn't have to be 100% efficient (what is?), it just has to be *practical.*"

I provided a link to a method of hydrogen production that is safe. Overall perfect? No. 100% efficient? No. But it uses a lot of existing technology and can be made to work on existing engines with little modification, and be competitive with fossil fuels, while remaining far cleaner than them.

And I'm not suggesting that any vehicle ought to be "100% efficient" - but I was trying to make the point that it makes no sense to use more energy than it takes to create the energy. If there really was a $192 kit to reduce gasoline consumption in a vehicle, lots of people would have already done it when gas was $4 a gallon, because they would have saved money by their second fill up. Even at $2 a gallon, it wouldn't take more than a few months.

I was pointing out that THAT idea is a HOAX.

I'm not suggesting we can make a practical transportation vehicle at 100% efficiency. But as you can see from at least one post above who wants to know more about the "plans" to do this to his/her car - undoubtedly more do. We should not be promoting hoaxes that *appear* to be more efficient (by only promoting the claims of mpg reduction) while not being honest about the total energy required.

I think that's being not only practical, but ethical, too.

Obama's energy boost

Jay Failing Captain Cook Hawaii — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:45:34 GMT

I sense excitement and rebirth, which makes me have hope. We are a hardworking and innovative people, let's take the lead again. This Obama guy stepped up to bat, support him, if he don't work out, quick get someone who will. But I think he is smart(Harvard, Constitutional law studies) and is busting some good moves. I predict that hydrogen will emerge, as it is already sequestered in water, just split it off at the very last moment before it goes into the combustion chamber. We need to enact laws to punish the Corporations who intentionally suppress new energy systems in order to maintain their old world
power structure. I remember in the 60's, someguy
came up with a new carberator which allowed use of water hydrogen, went around to all the auto makers to sell the idea, and had a mysterious
accident and death shortly thereafter. The idea was "lost." I maintain there are hidden viable solutions already known, but bogarted.
The other new one, is the plasma state waste generator. It takes all waste, ground up,and feeds into a plasma chamber, where it is broken down to basics, hydrogen for one, creates usable energy heat,
disposes of the waste, and leaves a ash/clinker which
has trace metals congealed and constitutes small % of
mass. This tech could utilize that floating mass of plastic in the Pacific...a floating oil field the size of a continent. I am really excited about our future, stoked as the surfers say. God Bless Our Nation again, we been bad. Welcome Home. jay

Obama's energy boost

Allan M Salzberg MD, PhD Boise ID — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:50:24 GMT

The portion of the speech was at best, a bad joke, or at worst the road-map to our becoming a second rate socialistic country, Given the present technology, nuclear fission needs to play an even greater part of our base energy. At peak use, fission produces electricity, at night, it can make hydrogen that could power vehicles/ Reprocessing or use of a 4'th generation fast neutron reactor virtually eliminates the need to store large amounts of long lived wastes for tens of thousands of years; at the same time these technologies vastly increases the amount of Uranium (or Thorium) to power the reactors. This will buy the time to when renewable or fusion power becomes economically viable. Not using fission will cripple our society either through insufficient or expensive energy.

Similarly, we need to drill. This will not solve the problem, but it will both buy some time and reduce the amount of treasure we transfer oversea.

Plans to avoid these technologies are ignorant at best, and culpable at worst. We cannot escape the laws of thermodynamic. When coupled with a Carbon tax, this refusal to use a non climate changing form of energy will force us into a society with limited use of energy while at the same time crippling the economy.

Obama's energy boost

Robert, Ft Stewart GA 3rd Infantry Division — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:38:53 GMT

As a Libertarian minded Conservative, I'm not much on big government. I am also in the Army and love my country. Didn't vote for the man, (McCain either) but if we are going to spend a lot of money, I would rather it be this stuff. I am old enough to have watched them land on the the moon, and all of the wonderful things that came out of that. No this is money better spent than to send me and my son to Iraq to kill people and tear up their country.

Obama's energy boost

Jose Nose Long Beach AC — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:12:47 GMT

People seems to stay with the same fail stuff. It is really pleasing me off

This whole energy thing is a situation that requires a solution. It is a problem to solve and it is all based on physics/math/engineering.
There is no much to bargain around. it is critical and it more important to reach a solution that if we like the solution or not

However people seems to be stuck on what I will solemmeny(sp?) name ASTRONAUT SUIT FASHION COMPLEX. Instead of designing the suit not to get killed
- will meteorites break the seal?
- will the visor helmet provide enough radiating sheltering?
- will it break appart?
- will it resist the nastiness of empty space?
- will it work at 10 kelvin?
- will it work at 200 kelvin?
etc etc

instead, the whole thing seems to be based on french fashion arena

- does it make me look fat?
- this visor color is HORRENDOUS!
- mon dieu!!! this gloves are so HUGE
- you want ME to use a hat like that one?
- it is to heavy..
- backpack are so for muddy terrain, ...I am gonna make history, I expect nothing less than coco channel!!

maybe we should put simon cowell (american idol) as secretary of energy. We can use some of that obliterate attitute of his for all these deluded ones that seem not to be able to wake up on their own to what we are really facing. Just as those loonies on American idol, they have heard themselves sing a note on their heads and they believe right away they are Placido Domingo!!

Someone slaps these people, time is of the essence here and there is real consequences about the decisions taken (or not) now.

Obama's energy boost

Jose Nose Long Beach CA — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:36:47 GMT

RE to JOE_KAN
[QUOTE]" I belive our elected officials don't understand the ecomonics of energy - the cheaper source wins. "
yeah, I agree, they do not 'belive the ecomonics' of energy. Maybe they believe the economics of energy???

This is what I have been talking about in my other posts: The solution is based on physics/math/engineering. I do not see much place for economics here. Economics get into the game only if there is many valid options available, they are they are all more or less technically viable and one's head is not a possible consequence of the decision taken

From my point of view, I see that the problem is that we are gonna get starved and any food is good as soon it doesn't kill us. All options to obtain the food are valid, even the ones that our palates are not very fond off. We can think later on how to address the issue. My priority is to guarantee there will be enough food for everybody in the future and the taste and price is secondary. Just as there will be enough.
There is no economics if there is demand for something, but there is nothing of it to sell
Not to mention that same of the food that you are eating right now is in part poison (for the planet and cause of global warming)

On the other hand you seem to speak for something that sounds like: Well, looks like we will run out of food..that sounds bad...maybe we should look into alternative foods (like that is gonna guarantee you will find enough)...but the alternative (to not having anything to eat) must be cheaper, I have to like it better and be healthy. Meanwhile I will keep eating the same and in more quantities, because it is cheaper and it is what I like and it is what this country identifies with.
I really dunno where you put the fact that the food/poison you actually consume is running out and poison or not, it will raise in price in the future or plain not be available anymore

FOOD FOR TOUGHT (pun intended)
'anyone that believes we can keep geometrically growing population and consumption forever, in the frame of a world with finite resources, is either a madman, an economist or both!!

so what are you??

from your posting, you seem to be on the side of soon to run out cheap poison, because it tastes strawberry!!!

Obama's energy boost

john beckam, seattle, wash — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:41:12 GMT

Obama's energy boost

msn nickleri — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:41:40 GMT

As a Libertarian minded Conservative, I'm not much on big government. I am also in the Army and love my country

Obama's energy boost

Msn Nickleri — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:56:54 GMT

Thank you..Nice Post..

Obama's energy boost

dopdolu — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:51:40 GMT

Thank you..Nice Post! Very Good!!

Obama's energy boost

Hayko Cepkin — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:03:32 GMT

Thank you..Nice Post! Very Good!!