Energy.

[Gaiaguerrilla]

Mother Jones, June '08 p.37

Mother Jones asks Mythbusters’s Jamie Hyneman to break down for us his conclusion to various alternative fuel myths.

I find this an excellent idea whose implications should not be underestimated. I would encourage anyone to keep such a list up on their fridge door or a room wall. This list is a rundown of what we are doing in the future whether we like it or not, several decades from now. Alternative fuels MUST be pressured past the theoretical stage urgently and the bogus ones must be shot down. It is probably the most important thing we will consider in this lifetime.

Although I am very fond of the idea Mother Jones presents here, I think it was very poorly done. Someone needs to do the same thing with more professionalism. I’ve no doubt that Jamie is a smart guy, but I’m sure he didn’t get paid a lot for this, and therefore it was mainly speculation on his part (time to test is money, afterall). But I’m satisfied so long as he didn’t fall into the cult masses believing in purely hypothetical energy sources that defy the laws of physics. I’m especially glad that he confirms a lot of things I believed. (Why didn’t I write it before him then. )

Here is a shortened, paraphrased version of what Jamie says. I put my own comments, but all his conclusion categories are kept in tact. Jamie, if you ever read this, please give me even a one-syllable answer. I put you right up there with James Randi (I emailed this to Mythbusters)

Note: “*” represents a key example, author, or principal.

Cow Manure- PLAUSIBLE. NASA actually investigates the potential to utilize astronaut’s waste for energy. (Hey. Disgusted or not, it’s relevant).
*Bacteria convert it to methane

Human Motion- BUSTED Although we use a lot of practical mechanical apparatus (like bikes) I would agree it’s unfeasable because we essentially use energy for human capacity. So occupying human capacity for energy defeats the purpose.

Magnetic Motors- BUSTED. I’m very fond of Jamie’s quick skeptical answer because I can’t count the number of times people have mentioned this existence of perpetual motion machines using a hydrogen torch or magnets. It’s obvious that if perpetual motion was discovered, you could not keep it under wraps with modern abilities, and it would be proven immediately with all the people that would want to utilize it. We don’t see it around. So don’t even mention it half-seriously.

Algae- PLAUSIBLE. in fact, I’m convinced that genetically engineered protists will probably one day be our main utility for just about every natural resource one can think of.
*Hydrogen production

Raindrops- BUSTED. Reasons should be fairly obvious.

Old Tires- BUSTED. Not only is Jamie skeptical about the energy gain through the process, but recycling rubber is already a frontier that doesn’t need to be cannibalized.

Empty Space- BUSTED. Similar to the reasons of magnetic motors Ie: “prove it!”
*Thomas Bearden

Grape Juice- PLAUSIBLE, but redundant. Same principal as algae.

Dirty Diapers- BUSTED, but I disagree and say plauible. If cow manure is plausible, and NASA considers human waste, why is this so different? True, the process would need a ridiculously expensive reconfiguring of the entire infrastructure. This is also the main reason why outdated sewage remains unchanged (Vancouver just dumps it in the ocean, so-called hippy tree-huggers).

Greenhouse Gases- PLAUSIBLE. Why not kill two very important birds with one stone? Drop climate change by further utilizing fossil fuel byproduct.
*Potassium Carbinate in air.

OVERVIEW

From seeing what’s being accepted and what’s discredited, the results are clear on what is feasable to pursue . . .

(1) genetically engineered protists have too much potential to be rejected. Given that genetic engineering for such a purpose can be considered ethical (the ends outweigh the means), they are essentially serving the purpose that an organelle can provide when a nanobot or a factory system can’t be so easily devised. They could one day produce things as broad as bone material for structure, pharmaceuticals, and fuel. Be careful though, any genetic engineering proposes a change to the ecosystem, for better or worse.

(2) Rethink waste management, including air pollution and sewage. Pollution which causes changes in the environment is in principal, untapped potential energy (it uses energy to make the changes). Most modern waste management, industrial or otherwise, is still based on old european models predating the industrial revolution. It is all undeniably obsolete, but we also admittedly quite literally buried ourselves in the wet cement- breaking our commitment to obsolete technology is expensive, complicated, risky (we depend greatly on them functioning at all times) and energy-consuming.

(3) Streamline solar extraction. All Earth energy comes from the sun. Although it does have other resources, it is all nonrenewable compared. (Fossil fuels are really originated from solar energy, and uranium will also eventually run out.) The key to future energy will revolve entirely around either recreating solar energy (cold fusion), or exploiting abundant asteroidal / solar energies.