Here are a few issues that I would like to discuss, and would have introduced them in other threads, but I don't want to hijack those discussions already in progress. Feel free to add any more issues you want to discuss. For my part, I will try to use logic and reason in our discussion.

Domestic policy: I would like to see some discussion on hydrogen or electric or a combination of both forms of public transportation implemented by the public sector. With all the emphasis on a unitary executive theory (that seems to be mostly serving a very limited objective) I would think that making the 'switch' over to those alternative technologies could be accomplished via executive orders at both the federal and state levels.

Foreign policy: Why are we wasting taxpayer money in the Middle East if it is not contributing the general Welfare of the US? From my perspective, formal recognition of another state in historic Palestine could be accomplish by any president and congress now assembled.

Hello there,
While I think it would be wise ease away from fossil fuels over the next few decades for transportation use, the two things you bring up really are intertwined.
Our long standing ME Foreign policy standings seem to be

Keep Oil Pumping
Arm Israel
Punish those that dont agree

The middle east is a very complex region of the world, due to its overall strategic location, resources and the Israel issue.

A new automobile propulsion fuel is a novel idea, but it will not happen until it becomes cost effective to do. Keep in mind of the actual infastructure that is in place for fossil fuels, from field to gas pump. Something will need to be done with all of that and it is going to be very very expensive.

I am not saying its right, but there is a long road to getting of oil, especially middle eastern oil.

I agree that both issues seem to be interrelated, but I also think that is the case, only incidentally, in more modern history.

I am of the opinion that the strategic importance of the Middle East, was more of an issue when we had to contend with the former Soviet Union. The Cold War is over, and so are the issues that required US involvement in that region.

As far as the issue of transitioning to a new technology, I think it could be done relatively easily by the public sector. In one sense, it really would be as easy as implementing an executive order to do so. If the public sector does it for public sector transport, it would create a market and the production technologies required for mass production would be realized sooner, rather than later. And, as a byproduct, we would also reap the benefits of a cleaner environment. In my opinion, that can be considered simple compliance with a Constitutionally enumerated power to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

With its geographic location being at the crossroads of the world, it has forever been and will likely until we develop teleportation machines remain important. Thier resources wealth will ensure this.
While I dont disagree with the principal of this statement, the sheer logistics of dealing with the changeover. The expense associated with a transportation energy changeover are immense. This is not something the private sector alone could accomplish.

That reminds me of an article I read on AOL a few weeks ago. It was a review of a new GM hydrogen fuel cell car. They said it ran rather well, unfortunately there are only like 6 or 8 refueling stations in the US.

And just where do we get most of our hydrogen that we use?

Oh yeah, from Natural Gas.

A huge new hydrogen plant..........

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Abu Dhabi plots hydrogen future

The government of Abu Dhabi has announced a $15bn (£7.5bn) initiative to develop clean energy technologies.

The Gulf state describes the five-year initiative as "the most ambitious sustainability project ever launched by a government".

Components will include the world's largest hydrogen power plant.

Hydrogen will be manufactured from natural gas by reactions involving steam, producing a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

GREAT. So, we can see why some groups are pushing hard for Hydrogen, since natural gas will still have a lot of value.

Both policies are the same policy. It is all about protecting US corporate interests and the interests of the transnational organizations/corporations.

As to alternative fuels, they have been suppressed for decades.

Hemp is one of the best crops for energy, gee, I wonder why the USA is the ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH WITHOUT A HEMP CROP?

In my opinion, bio-diesel is the way to go for transportation, with further devolpement of electric power.

Some links....

extensive study of the long term effects of B20 biodiesel in big trucks over a two year period.

The 2 Million Mile Haul Biodiesel Test

AN EXCELLENT PAPER ON HEMP as Biomass For Energy

Hemp Biomass for Energy

MORE

Q: How do biodiesel emissions compare to petroleum diesel?
A: Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.

Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the US, the overall ozone forming potential of the speciated hydrocarbon emissions from biodiesel was nearly 50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.

Biodiesel emissions have decreased levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrited PAH compounds that have been identified as potential cancer causing compounds. Test results indicate PAH compounds were reduced by 75 to 85 percent, with the exception of benzo(a)anthracene, which was reduced by roughly 50 percent.

TDEC: Alternative Fuels: E85 FAQs

E10 (10 percent ethanol) has 3.3 percent less energy content per gallon than conventional gasoline. E85 (which currently averages 74 percent ethanol by volume) has 24.7 percent less energy per gallon than conventional gasoline. AEO2007 assumes that engine thermal efficiency remains the same whether the vehicle burns conventional gasoline, E10, or E85. This means that 1.03 gallons of E10 or 1.33 gallons of E85 are needed for a vehicle to cover the same distance that it would with a gallon of conventional gasoline. Although the difference is not expected to have a significant effect on purchases of E10, AEO2007 assumes that motorists whose vehicles are able to run on E85 or conventional gasoline will compare the two fuels on the basis of price per unit of energy.

EIA - Biofuels in the US Transportation Sector

Driving Around Sundance With Biodiesel Made From Algae
By Chuck Squatriglia EmailJanuary 23, 2008

Driving Around Sundance With Biodiesel Made From Algae | Autopia from Wired.com

Safeway Converts U.S. Trucking Fleet to Biodiesel
PLEASANTON, California, January 21, 2008 (ENS) - Safeway Inc. announced Friday that it has converted its entire U.S. truck fleet to cleaner-burning biodiesel fuel.

The company will use B20, a blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent diesel, in its fleet of more than 1,000 trucks.

Safeway Converts U.S. Trucking Fleet to Biodiesel

On average, a diesel engine delivers a 30 percent increase in fuel economy compared to a gasoline engine and a commensurate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Diesels are the most efficient internal combustion engines, firing on compression rather than an induced spark. Diesel fuel also delivers significantly higher energy content than gasoline yet is less flammable and explosive, making it a safer fuel. If new technology could allow diesels to fully meet stringent clean air standards, then diesels may well hold a clear advantage in both short- and long-term environmental strategies.

Unlike alternative fuels like hydrogen, the infrastructure to support clean diesel vehicles is already in place. The popularity of turbodiesel engines in light-duty pickup trucks – Dodge Cummins, Ford Powerstroke, and GM Duramax – has made diesel fuel more accessible than ever. No longer is it necessary to search out a truck stop to fuel up. A growing number of service stations have diesel right on the main fueling island.



A good ARTICLE ON IMPROVEMENTS OF DIESELS AND LOW SULFER DIESEL FUEL....

The diesel solution - Toronto Auto Show 2007 - Sympatico / MSN Autos

////////

I have only given a few pieces, as I am getting sleepy, but if you study both ethanol and biodiesel, then biodiesel is clearly superior. The main OBSTACLE is getting greedy Americans, LIKE ME, to switch to diesel cars.

A few years ago this would have been impossible, but with the continued improvements of diesel engines, there might just be a chance to get the American people to start switching.

What is sad is that HEMP is the one product that can truly help us drastically cut our pollution. It can be grown for different products, from biomass energy, to biodiesel, to food, to clothing, to beauty products, to paper, in fact, a 1938 Popular Mechanics article claimed there are 25,000 products that can be made from hemp. Hemp also needs little fertilizer and very little pesticides.

Hemp can be grown in every state in the nation with wide ranging results, but it's versatility is so fantastic, that the "powers that be" will not allow us to grow it.

As to hydrogen, I have not really studied it, as it does not seem nearly as practical as an energy crop based fuel. The fact that so much hydorgen is produced from Natural Gas does not seem to me to be helping our energy situation a whole lot, as we are still using a fossil fuel to create the new fuel.

I am hoping there is a diesel out there for me in the near future.

Maybe if I can afford one like this, I will consider it..........





http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/au...3-audi-r8.html

How much, how soon? The production R8 Quattro with a 4.2-liter V-8 engine already nudges $120,000, so another $10,000 for the world's fastest diesel sports car doesn't sound unreasonable. Expect to see a production version in showrooms in about 18 months.

GUESS I BETTER START SAVING MY PENNIES.

I agree that there are resources in the region that have an impact on our economy, but I think that better trade relations can solve that problem better than military involvement that had better justification during the Cold War than it does now.

Better trade relations can result in a lower cost for products than can any state military aggressiveness.

Consider an analogy to a hypothetical Europe with the oil reserves of the Middle East. It is highly improbable that we would have the same level of military posture in Europe that we do in the Middle East.

In the scenario I present, it would not be up to the private sector to accomplish a transition to new technology until after it became sufficiently cost effective to do so. The public sector could be the catalyst for the transition by simply utilizing its scale-economy potential create a demand for a product that can also be utilized by the private sector once the technology become more affordable.

well, there goes "logic and reason" in our discussion.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

A hypothetical scenario that involves the public sector could render that issue moot, initially. Consider public transportation since it usually incorporates it own maintenance and fuel depot. Once the technology has been developed sufficiently by the public sector, the private sector would have access to those lower cost products and technologies.

I agree that biofuels are closer, in development, than cost effective hydrogen production techniques that don't require fossil fuels to produce it. It may also take more advances in fuel cell technology to make it more consumer friendly.

One of the main attractions of hydrogen, for me, is that the "pollution" emitted is water. Hydrogen is also one of the most abundant elements in the universe.

Does anyone have an opinion on why we are taking the scenic route to recognizing another state in historic Palestine?

I am of the opinion, that simply recognizing a new state in the region will go a long way towards ensuring better stability. Having a stable trading partner as a buffer along a border could be of greater benefit to Israel than having an impoverished territory resorting to revolution or crime.

The main reason it is taking a long time, in my opinion, is because the Palestinians reject every plan ever submitted by the UN and the US since 1947.

i want to know what the candidates are going to do about the ROOT problem that links islamic terrorism, our domestic economy and foreign relations. in a word: OIL.

the long term solution to a lot of our problems is simply independence from ARAB OIL. period. let's face it, if the leading Arab economic states didn't have oil, they'd be running around in a huge sand pit trying to keep their people from starving. they would have no economic, political, cultural power. ZERO. they'd effectively be an extension of North Africa -- with warlords fighting over one another for political power -- and guess what? they would pose absolutely no threat to the West.

when was the last time you worried about a terrorist threat from native Africans? you haven't. they're too busy killing one another to worry about anything beyond their own borders. Think about it for a second and step back: an organization like Al Queda takes money. A lot of money. Recruiting. Training. Communication. Equipment. Weapons. That takes deniro. as well as political and cultural power. If it weren't for OIL, Osama Bin Laden would have been some nobody looking for his next meal in the desert.

Iraq was about OIL plain and simple. There are plenty of other nations that could pose a direct threat to American interests and who were further along the Nuclear timetable than Iraq. Places like North Korea. But you don't see us going in there. Why? THERE'S NO FREAKING OIL THERE.

Iran is also about OIL. Saudi is all about OIL. If we could just cut our damn dependence on Arab OIL, we could disengage, and we could really take the gloves off. But we keep pissing around because we need that OIL.

Frankly, the US Government should have seen this coming after the first OIL embargo in the early 70s brought the US economy to its knees. We should have had a "Manhattan Project" like mentality to get independent from Arab OIL. But we didn't do squat. Or more to the point, the greedy corrupt US OIL companies kept all of the major policy makers in their pockets. Fast forward 30 years later and the situation has only gotten worse.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the US is held hostage to Arab OIL. It continues to play a critical role in our foreign policy and economic policy and we still have no solution to this problem. We have thrown billions of dollars down this hole with no end in sight. Billions that could have been spent turning this nation around.

To me, there is no single issue more important that the next President's plan to get us headed down the road of independence from Arab OIL.

You can answer your own question, if you take the time to reflect on it.

What has to happen first, before we can allow Palestine it's own state?