Comments on: A Nobelist for Energy Secretary who gets both climate and energy efficiency?

By: Brooklyn Playa

Brooklyn Playa — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:39:30 +0000

I love what Chu is doing for the our economy. I mean sure he’s raising taxes for some things, but it’s for the better of the present and the future. I want my grandchildren, children and great grand children to live. AMERICA I WANT YOU TO LISTEN UP!! WE NEED TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY, CONTINENT AND OUR WORLD!!!! PLEASE SUPPORT RECYCLING AND SPREAD THE WORD!!
PEACE AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
-j.j

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:33:29 +0000

Note: the three degrees is *clearly* a slip-of-the-tongue, because the *slide* that he shows says 5 degrees consistently:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/ 2008/ 12/ 06/ steven-chu-beautiful-planet/ ,
around 1:11.

I don’t understand where the 11F came from.

By: Cyril R.

Cyril R. — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:03:59 +0000

Advanced biofuels could grow very quickly if the corn ethanol subsidy is phased out over the next few years.

Almost the exact opposite of what some pro corn ethanol people like to tell us, the corn ethanol subsidy actually hampers the adoption of more biofuels by making the market for biofuels lazy and distorted.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:26:37 +0000

Anyway, butanol is a superior fuel due to higher energy denisty. It is 48 parts carbon to 26 parts oxygen and hydrogen, an even higher carbon ratio by weight.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:24 +0000

Bob Wright — Unless it is made from sugar cane. Then it is much less dependent upon fossil fuel inputs: ‘low fossil carbon’ might be a suitable phrase.

By: Bob Wright

Bob Wright — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:32:04 +0000

How DO you classify ethanol?

Its grown as a crop, BUT it actually takes slightly more fossil fuel energy to plow the field, make and apply the synthetic fertilzer, pick the corn, dispose of the stalks, ship the corn to the distillery, ferment it, distill it to 100% alcohol, dispose of the dirty fermentation waste, dry the mash and truck it to farmers, truck the ethanol to refineries… than it yields as a fuel.

So its a fossil fuel! Or a transfer fuel from fossil to whatever. Stupid is whatever.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:48:02 +0000

jcwinnie — No, I’d have to move to Illinois.

Joe — It is unfortunate that you find biomethane ‘obscure’ as we’ll be seeing quite a bit more in the future. Aa another example, a municipality in The Netherlands produces enough for a CNG vehicle filling station down by the docks.
Charcoal is certainly not obscure; many people in the world cook and heat with it. In the U.S. that’s only done on Saturday afternoons.

But let’s see: ethanol is 24 parts carbon to 22 parts oxygen and hydrogen. Seems to be more carbon than anything else.

It is unfortunate that your usage is ’standard’ since, as I stated, it is confusing, failing to distinguish between fossil source for the carbon versus biological source.

By: Jim W

Jim W — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:52:29 +0000

I’m all for this appointment, but I had to laugh at this quote from Dr. Chu’s presentation to the Clean Energy Summit at Las Vegas

“Now, three degrees Centigrade doesn’t seem a lot to you, that’s 11° F.”

Anyone care to check the math on that?

By: jcwinnie

jcwinnie — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:32:12 +0000

While not a Nobel Laureate, Bush’s sycophant Johnson was a scientist.

Okefenokee, JR, Bama won. Thank the FSM! And, there is a member of the cabinet of Asian ancestry, excellent!

OTOH, follow pretzel logic, plz.

Millions of gallons leaking from oil sands tailings ponds daily.
BP is in the oil sands.
BP uses Fischer-Tropsch.
The EPA (Business Protection Agency) is part of DoE.
DoE does Next Gen.
Vat Chu Vant sez there’s more to l-earn about alternative energy.

Q.E.D.*, we are farked.

* Which I think is Latin for “Git outta dee road, Tar Sand Biatch.”

[JCW: You are jumping the shark here, analogizing Chu with Johnson. Mellow out!]

By: Bob Wright

Bob Wright — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:11:25 +0000

The Senate Republicans have put togther quite a list (400) of deniers or bone pickers with impressive sounding credentials. It will be hard to move ahead with these guys’ opinions “validating” non-action. I hear the list is expanding from 400 to 600 for a Poznan protest document. Watts-up-with-that? LOL

http://epw.senate.gov/ public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport