David : I saw a TV show, might also have been on Discovery Channel, about a type of grass or small shrub. As I recall, it is being grown now in places like Florida and Louisiana. Unfortunately I can't remember what the plant was called. But whatever it is, it produces a really high "oil" content and, of course, is 100 % renewable. It also grows in areas that are not useful for other kinds of agriculture, so it does not compete with food crops. Billy ================================== 4/9/2012 8:49:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Your points are nicely made. I just have one problem with the article. I remember seeing on The Discovery Channel (I think) something about Brazil using some plant called switchgrass. Seems to me that would be a GRASS, something that, as it is stated below, we need to do more work on. If it is working in Brazil, what do we need to work on? Maybe we don't have enough of it or some such, but it would appear that Brazil has made the trip already and can't someone license the technology from Brazil or something?? David _ "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz On 4/9/2012 11:13 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Centroids : The following article is about the future of energy in America. However, and while the review is quite good in its own terms, there is special value for Radical Centrists. Here are some passages from the essay that, with minor revision, apply directly to RC : inconvenient complications, unforeseen side effects, and less-than-perfect solutions explaining the difficulties [ in examples across the United States ] the message (is) that we can start making energy changes now, rather than waiting on some miracle solution. breaking down complicated concepts while keeping them interesting The grid is sort of like the Matrix: all around us, affecting everything we do without us usually noticing, and only a few people really understand it. Energy change is going to happen, and the change might be easier if we all understand the issues and decisions that need to be made. Let us go through these quotes one by one. ------------------------------ inconvenient complications, unforeseen side effects, and less-than-perfect solutions. It cannot be denied that the solutions Radical Centrists offer to vexing political problems are like that, most are less than perfect, doubtlessly some --if implemented-- would have unanticipated side effects. Some would be complicated. In other words, in making a case for RC we need to be realistic about what an RC approach can do and about the fact that, especially since so little by way of RC principles have been tested in real world politics, our solutions will sometimes fail. There is NO need to emphasize the possibility of failure, in fact that would be a very bad idea. We do need to "sell" the concept of Radical Centrism. You cannot do that by undercutting your own arguments. Regardless, we also need credibility. And you cannot achieve that by any pretense to perfection. No-one buys any such thing in the political marketplace except Yellow Dog Democrats and party hack Republicans --------------------------------- explaining the difficulties What is Radical Centrism ? One thing it isn't is an ideology with cut-and-dried answers to all questions, a one-way-street way of thinking. We still are in the formative stages of inventing RC. We are a lot further along than in 2004, when we began, a good deal of theoretical groundwork is completed. Regardless, the proof of the pudding is in how RC might work in the actual world of politics and governance. About that, there isn't very much we can say at all. Mark Satin, at one time, made a really good start in identifying nascent "Radical Middle" examples from around the country, but it had serious limitations, especially Mark's "take" on RC as a mild version of political Leftism. That, of course, is not our viewpoint at all. But Mark did show us how to approach an important task, and identified the need for such work. Our bad that we did not pick up on his idea and go further with it. ------------------------------------------------------- [ in examples across the United States ] the message (is) that we can start making energy changes now, rather than waiting on some miracle solution. Actually we have an informal start on doing exactly this, but there is nothing systematic about what we have done in this area. Accessing the relevant examples is nearly impossible and would take serious research effort in RC.org files or our personal records. But people in politics can make changes now without waiting for anything --precisely because there are some examples, scattered to be sure, that provide entry points, or better, pointers, on how to begin and how to proceed. ------------------------------------------------------ breaking down complicated concepts while keeping them interesting We need to find effective ways of communicating the gist of Radical Centrism ----------------------------------------------------- The grid is sort of like the Matrix: all around us, affecting everything we do without us usually noticing, and only a few people really understand it. The need to Radical Centrist solutions to problems is all around us, and dysfunctional politics effects everything we do. Only a few people really understand how Radical Centrist ideas can work to fix the system. -------------------------------------------------------------- Energy change is going to happen, and the change might be easier if we all understand the issues and decisions that need to be made. It seems clear enough that Radical Centrism will become normative in future US politics. The current system is a mess and it seems to get worse with the passage of time, not better. The growth of Independent voters, by some estimates now about 40 % of the electorate, even if that number is inflated, should tell us exactly this. Which is to say that it is imperative for us to get the RC message out there so that our ideas have a chance to influence the real world of politics. We are in the best position of anyone to do this. ======================================= All of this said, these considerations tell us what is missing. Two things more than anything else, so it seems to me : ( 1 ) Commitment and ( 2 ) Investment. Why is there a shortfall of commitment ? No payoff. No matter how much work anyone puts into RC, while it is gratifying to have civil discussions and useful personally to learn new things --and no-one should underestimate the value of this-- regardless the feeling is inescapable that we are spinning our wheels. All kinds of good ideas come and go and nothing happens. Like Mike's proposal for a RC.org group anthology about Radical Centrism. This concept seems to me to be very worthwhile. For sure it could use some "fine tuning" and some hard self-criticism so that, if carried out, it might have an impact, but o therwise the idea is excellent and it is doable. But what is the payoff ? That is, what is the motivation besides possible "creative satisfaction" for many hours of writing and even more hours of research, not counting any discussions that might transpire as articles are shared with the group for critique / feedback ? To get RC really off the ground would require much more than is currently available, or foreseeable. Especially investment. If we had a clear ( very clear ) vision for the political future that showed how useful RC could be in American politics we would have something to "sell" to underwriters. Evidence that we are deadly serious. At that point we could realistically hope to persuade one or more "sponsors" to fund RC at a level where professional work could commence and effective communications to the Web ( and a wider audience ) set in motion. To be candid, I still don't see this happening here any time soon. Too bad, it is foregoing major opportunity. Well, I have my own project and my commitment is genuine and my investment of time could not be greater. This won't effect my participation here in any way that I can think of, but it would be sad for RC to remain in the category of "what might have been." Billy ========================================== ars technica Why you should read the book Before the Lights Go Out By _Kyle Niemeyer_ (http://arstechnica.com/author/kyle-niemeyer/) April 8, 2012 In the very first pages of her book, Before the Lights Go Out, _Maggie Koerth-Baker_ (http://www.maggiekb.com/) blows my mind. Not in the sense of "Wow, I never knew that!" (although I certainly thought that throughout the book), but more like "Wow, I never thought of it that way!" I’m referring to the revelation that the reasons for pursuing alternative energy don’t have to be focused on climate change. Instead, many Americans care more about energy security, conservation, or simple nationalism. This sets the tone for the whole book: let’s skip the reasons and just focus on the solutions and hard choices that need to be made. Hard choices, indeed. This isn’t a book proclaiming that the hydrogen economy or nuclear fusion or something else (pick your dream energy source/carrier) will save us all. Koerth-Baker is optimistic, but realistic: we can do this, but there aren’t any easy solutions, and it’s probably going to be expensive. This isn’t about driving a hybrid or changing your lightbulbs— not that those aren’t good things to do—but rather, as she puts it, "about the inconvenient complications, unforeseen side effects, and less-than-perfect solutions." The book is a fast and easy read (in the good sense). If you're familiar with Koerth-Baker’s work as the science editor at _BoingBoing_ (http://boingboing.net/) , you know that she does a great job breaking down complicated concepts while keeping them interesting. This carries over to the book, and it reads almost like a long-form blog post, which is a good thing. Instead of links, every chapter holds a Neal-Stephenson-esque level of footnotes—52 pages of them (compared to just over 200 pages of primary content). As the title subtly suggests, this book focuses mostly on electricity, rather than transportation fuels or other energy sectors. This isn’t because those other areas aren’t interesting, but simply because electrical generation makes up the biggest single portion of energy use and emissions. Starting with the first stumbling attempts at electricity generation and the electrical grid in New York and Appleton, Wisconsin, in 1882, Koerth-Baker explains how we got here, and what "here" is: an electrical grid with waste and inefficiencies at both the generation and consumption ends, one that requires constant monitoring to make sure there isn’t too much or too little electricity running through our wires. The grid is sort of like the Matrix: all around us, affecting everything we do without us usually noticing, and only a few people really understand it. Unlike the Matrix, however, which was created by advanced artificial intelligences, the grid has come together piece-by-piece over the last 100+ years. (Things would probably by easier if it had been the former, though.) Koerth-Baker does a great job demystifying the grid, as well as explaining the difficulties in bringing large amounts of electrical power from renewables to our current grid. To explain all these things, she takes us across the United States, meeting people like the owner of an extremely energy-efficient home in Urbana, Illinois—so efficient, in fact, that it can be heated by a single candle in the fall—and the director of a electrical grid control center in Houston, Texas. We also travel to the farm town of Medelia, Minnesota, where the leader of a local nonprofit is trying to improve soil and water quality by getting farmers to grow crops other than corn and soy—crops that can be converted to biofuels to sell locally. These experiences drive home the message that we can start making energy changes now, rather than waiting on some miracle solution. There are a couple minor issues I must bring up, even if I’m nitpicking. For one, Koerth-Baker insists that the metric prefix "giga" (as in "gigawatt," one billion watts) is pronounced with a soft 'g,' as in "jigawatt." Apparently, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (back when it was just the National Bureau of Standards) formalized this version, but I’ ve never heard it said this way in practice, Back to the Future notwithstanding. Like I said, nitpicking (and I’m only half serious). I do have one slightly more substantive criticism, although it is still minor. When talking about biofuel made from grass, she says that researchers are working on making it compatible with cars. However, this sentence encapsulates a big problem that the engine and combustion community is dealing with right now. Without getting into this issue too deeply, the problem is solvable, but there is a good amount of work needed to both understand the properties of the biofuels and to redesign existing engines (or new engines altogether) that can run on varying fuels. In all, this is a great book, and one I recommend that pretty much everyone should read. We interact with electricity and energy every day, even if it has become invisible. Energy change is going to happen, and the change might be easier if we all understand the issues and decisions that need to be made. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
