Alternate Energy AKA Wood Gas

What is wood gas? It is an alternate energy that has been around for centuries. The first official documented device to make and use wood gas was in 1839. In 1901 it powered its first automobile. Until 1930, wood gas was used to heat homes and light lanterns until natural gas became plentiful. It was a well understood and renewable energy source. What happened?
Oil.
With oil and natural gas becoming abundant and more easily transported to the markets, wood gas fell out of favor until World War 2, where in some countries, such as Nazi occupied Denmark, 95% of all vehicles were powered by wood gas. Then when the war ended, petroleum based fuels ruled once again.
Oil has many advantages over wood gas. Wood gas must be made by burning biomass (wood, grass, or similar) and generally cannot be stored for any significant period of time. Wood gas is inherently dirty and requires constant maintenance to keep the machines running. Wood gas also has a lower amount of available energy by weight (or volume) and thus makes machines run with less horsepower or torque. All of these make wood gas a less desirable method for providing energy to consumers.
However, wood gas is not useless. It can run a gasoline engine with a carburetor with nearly no modification to the engine, and can run gasoline engines with fuel injectors with a small change to the computer controlled mechanisms. It is based on a renewable fuel and can run on just about any solid combustible material. It is also easily made and repaired by anyone with basic understanding of metal work, specifically welding or braising.
Wood gas is such a useful viable alternative that the United States Government actually spend time and money to research and publish a paper on using wood gas as an alternative to gasoline in a petroleum emergency!
Wood gas could be a wonderful resource for people who are located in remote areas of the country, or those that run farm equipment. Those that want to live off the grid could use wood gas to power generators and use the heat from combustion to heat their homes. Should the world oil economy collapse, wood gas could be used to keep the economy moving, though more slowly.
Take a look at wood gas. It is one of the many different methods that can be used to reduce the need for oil. It may not fit the needs for the average commuter, as it takes up to 15 minutes to get the wood gas generator up and running before you start moving the vehicle, and must be restarted every time that the vehicle sits for more than an hour. However, it may work for long distance trucking and work well for agricultural work. It can also be used to remote energy production for remote towns. In short, it isn't the solution, but it may be part of the solution.

The Auto Industry Needs Help! Or Does It?

The American major automobile manufactures have fallen on hard times. They are currently asking that the government step in and help them ride this wave of instability in the markets. Should the government help out the companies?

I think that a little help would be good. It would hopefully allow for the companies to shift gears toward more hybrids and more research into electric, natural gas and fuel cell cars.

But I don't think it is going to do much good, and here is why:

Consumers.

That is right, the auto industry can do whatever they want to try and make fuel efficient cars trucks and SUV's but in the end if they are going to fall flat, it is because of consumers. American Consumers, specifically, are an extraordinarily fickle lot. It is because of them that the automakers took such a hard hit. Lets look at the facts.

The American Automakers adjusted to a fuel shortage in the 1970's by creating small more fuel efficient cars. In 1980, you could buy a Honda CRX or a Geo Metro that got 50 mpg! What happened? When fuel prices dropped to manageable prices, consumers demanded more power, larger vehicles, and more pleasing (both visually and audibly) automobiles. Those that could push 50mpg out of their powertrains were abandoned as consumers would not buy them. In other countries, where fuel prices have remained higher due to taxes and other regulations, the MPG of vehicles stayed higher.

So why not bring in these vehicles from outside the US?

Two reasons. The first is regulations. Some safety laws and some environmental laws differ. Both of these can add weight to a car. Six airbags don't come free, in cost or in weight. Steel reinforced doors increase safety, but also increase weight.

The second is again, the consumer. These 50 mpg vehicles tansport people and good just fine, but they do so too slowly for American consumers. Would you like to drive a vehicle that took 15 seconds to get to 60 mph? That seems like forever to most American consumers. Since consumers don't like that kind of wait, they don't buy those kinda of cars. As such the automakers don't sell those cars.

Why don't the automakers just force it upon consumers? Because there is, or was, more money to be made from bigger vehicles. Why else would Honda, Toyota, and other oversea automakers make large trucks and SUV's for the American market? Toyota Tacoma or Honda Ridgeline anyone?

So what can we do? Not to much in my opinion. Because of the large reach back needed to get all the pieces together for a vehicle automakers will be unable to shift production at the speeds that oil prices fluctuate. From August 08 to November 08, fuel prices dropped from just under $4 to $2.30 average for gasoline. This is after fuel prices jumped up to $4 and stay there for many months. If automakers had shifted the majority of their stock to small fuel efficient cars, consumers would now be clamoring for bigger faster vehicles.

In the near future, even if fuel prices remain low, American consumers will continue to look for smaller more fuel efficient cars. But mark my words, if fuel stays low over the next year, possibly the next 6 months, and the economy appears to recover, sales of SUVs and trucks will jump up to near previous sales numbers.

Why? The American consumer will have forgotten about the fuel problems of before and shift back to where power and comfort are worth more than mileage per gallon.

In the end, we should help bailout the automakers to keep the workers going and prevent the collapse of the automible manufacturing capability in the United States. However, without a shift in consumer wants and spending, we may well be right back where we are now.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130439

Obama to Close Gitmo

President Elect (PE) Obama is working to close Guantanamo Bay once reaching office. I have one big question though, why?

Has PE Obama been briefed on Guantanamo Bay? Has he seen the classified reports, or asked his staff to visit the facility? I doubt it, and highly suggest he does. Is he aware that having the 'suspected' terrorists detained is a right that was never afforded to those they beheaded, bombed or shot? I am pretty sure the Soldiers and Marines would have loved to get a trail before being blasted apart because they were 'infidels' or some other Jihadist enemy.

Why do we want to bring the 'suspected' terrorists here to America? Why do we want to give them the same legal rights that are enjoyed by American citizens? The 'suspected' terrorists are very lucky to be alive in the first place. Throughout history and war people of their status were routinely killed, never given clean, respectable quarters and a trial. We have gone to extreme lengths to make sure these people had their religious books, food that meets their needs and religious restrictions, and time to pray.

We Americans cannot pray in schools, but the 'suspected' terrorists can pray in prison!

PE Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history." How so? Going out of our way to not kill 'suspected' terrorist? Should we have simply just offed them when we had the chance?

Laurence Tribe, a legal adviser to PE Obama and a Harvard law professor, said " We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."

I agree that we need to process the people in Guatanamo Bay. However, I caution everyone to remember that these persons are there also for intelligence and security reasons. Each 'suspected' terrorist needs to be examined by PE Obama's new administration, and not a carte-blanche to everyone there and just start releasing people.

PE Obama has a lot of plans and a lot of tasks to accomplish. Lets just hope he doesn't cause more problems trying to "solve" Gitmo.

Veterans Day: Thoughs on Service

Tuesday is Veterans Day. As this will be my last Veterans Day as a Service Member, I thought it would be a good time to write down some of my thoughts.
First, to all my Brothers and Sisters in Arms, past and present, thank you for everything you do and have done. Without those who serve with me and those that have served before me, I would not be where I am today. Thank you.
Secondly, and my main thought on this day, is that I do not believe I am a hero, nor do many of my friends feel like heroes. Yet I have had people call me a hero. I have not personally killed any terrorists, nor have I even shot at one. I do not disarm bombs, nor do I clear buildings. I am an engineer, making sure that everything is running when people need to eat, sleep or relax.
I did not join the military for my country. I joined for me. Sounds selfish, I know, but I wanted money for school so I could further myself. The zeal for country is there, but it is not the main reason I joined.
However, do not make the mistake that I do not love my country or love my job! I have seen other countries and how those people love. I know first hand why the United States is the best country in the world, and I am proud to say that I am willing to do whatever is needed to defend her and her liberties.
It is that belief that I think keeps many of us in the service for 20-30 years. The willingness to devote ourselves to something greater than ourselves. We start it for many personal reasons, but at the end of the day you do it for each other, you do it for the country.
So, this Veterans Day, thank you for your support and for your well wishes, and thank you for calling us heroes. But if you want to honor our service, do something for your country and your neighbors. If you really do support your veterans, support what they worked for, the best country in the world.
God Bless the United States of American and All Those Who Serve Her!

Gay Marriage: Civil Right or Personal Choice?

Does anyone not want to talk about Proposition 8? Well, I haven't seen anyone that doesn't have an opinion, so I figured I would way in on it.
I believe that "Marriage" is reserved for a man and a woman through their religious beliefs. AS such, the government has no reason, and no right, to legislate "Marriage." Instead, the government should be concerned with "civil unions" as those effect the state. My solution? Everyone can have a civil union upon reaching certain requirements that do not discriminate (as they say 'race, creed, sex, etc.')
In some cultures very young children are "married" to bring rival tribes or clans into peace. The United States does not recognize these 'marriages' and nor should it. A majority (52% is a majority) of people who voted in California believe that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. Fine. Let whatever beliefs these two groups continue by having the government stop legislating 'marriage.'By having the government issue civil unions to people that are of a certain age and any other nondiscriminatory factors this would be fair and reasonable.
The two primary reasons that the government regulates marriage are taxes and custody. If we remove this limitation and expand those elligible it would benifit may people. Couples of any sex could join in a civil union for whatever reason. I could see reasons for two people who are not in love to get a civil union for a period of time. Perhaps two adults have no other family and live together, but are good friends. With out a next of kin, what would happen to either of them if they were to become injured? Would their medical decisions be made by the state? How would take care of their bills?
They could write out living wills and powers of attorneys, but what if they missed something? And why would they want to hire a lawyer to address these items that come automatically with a civil union? To allow them access to a civil union would be fair and save both them and the government a lot of time and money over the legal wrangling should this situation occur.
In the case of gay marriage, it would become a non-issue. They would have the legal rights already afforded to 'conventional marriages' and would be equal in the eyes of the law. This would solve the issue of civil right. As for 'marriage' it would remain a personal choice. With about a 1 in 2 chance of a marriage ending in divorce, it would seem that the union is a personal choice already.
In conclusion, let us be equal in rights to everyone. The the government worry about the law and the taxes. The religious organizations can worry about marriage. We are headed this way anyway, but if we are going to change things, lets change them for the better and so that it makes the most sense and helps the most people.

The Tragedy of the UNREGULATED Commons

The Tragedy of the UNREGULATED Commons
OR
Why when everyone owns something, no one actually owns it.
I just finished reading an article today called “The Tragedy of the Commons” written by Garrett Hardin. This article got me thinking about politics and I wanted to take his ideas and put my own thoughts with it, specifically my thoughts on the “social commons” as it pertains to the American Election of 2008.
Imagine the following:
There is a town where all the land is owned by the ten families living in the town. The land is in the middle of the town and all the houses surround the field. All the families in the town own ten cows which are sold to make money. The land can only support 100 cows; anymore and the land begins to die. Everything is great and all the families make enough money to live with their families. However, one of the families realizes that if they put one extra cow in the field they can earn enough money to move to the town down the street. When the family leaves the land will recover as their eleven cows will be gone, and bring the land back to balance.
Sounds quite ordinary, right? In this example the town has decided that the land in communal and shared by everyone, thus everyone has an interest in keeping the land healthy. This logic is sound, but fails when the human element is brought in. The family has rationalized that if they hurt the commons a little, it will hurt everyone just a little and allow the family to make a great gain. But what happens when other families put more cows on the land to try and move to the same town?
In this case each family will follow the same rational. If their family can earn enough to move out, it will be better for the remaining families after they leave. So everyone starts to put more cows into the pasture. This causes the pasture to die. In order to make enough to live, each family must now put more cows on what is left of the grass thus accelerating the death of the grass.
In the end, no one family saw the land as their land and did not take ownership of the land. In fact a pure mathematical look tells us that if one family had taken the strategy, it would have worked out fine. It was when everyone else wanted the same thing that the situation fell apart. This is exactly what happened in the real world example of Boston Common. Some families bought more cattle and in the end the Common was closed to everyone.
This tragedy is occurring in our world today and is also part of the tragedy that makes many utopian ideas fail. The world oceans are over fished because they are owned by everyone but only very specific persons receive the gains. As such, each specific person will fish more to gain more, but in the end hurt everyone. Rivers and the ocean are used for pollution disposal for the same reasons as the fictitious town would use up the common grass.
So why does this apply to the 2008 Election?
Well, we have to be careful that we do not create a system of 'commons' the Americans will come to rely on. If we start to 'give away' services that everyone can use, then everyone is going to use the commons to destruction. This will obviously cause a degradation in services and an increase in cost, saving nothing and hurting everyone.
The idea of universal health care falls under this theory of over usage. While health care should be accessible by everyone as a basic service, there is a risk that if everyone MUST use a 'common' plan that they do not pay for (that is to say they pay taxes but not a usage, or deductible, fee) the the system will become overused and everyone will suffer in the end.
We cannot allow our country to let things become everyone's 'commons' as it will ultimately lead to everyone having nothing. This could be universal health care or universal wealth. If people do not feel ownership of what they are using, or a connection to the owner of what they are using, the end result will generally be destruction of whatever the 'common' is.

Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248.