Affordable Lead-Acid Batteries For Hybrid Cars  

Tyler Hamilton has a new article at technology Review on a CSIRO developed affordable lead acid battery for hybrid cars.

The so-called UltraBattery combines 150-year-old lead-acid technology with supercapacitors, electronic devices that can quickly absorb and release large bursts of energy over millions of cycles without significant degradation. As a result, the new battery lasts at least four times longer than conventional lead-acid batteries, and its creators say that it can be manufactured at one-quarter the cost of existing hybrid-electric battery packs.

In the United Kingdom last week, a Honda Insight hybrid powered by the UltraBattery system surpassed 100,000 miles on a test track. "The batteries were still in perfect condition at the end of the test," says David Lamb, who heads up low-emission transport research at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia's national science agency. "What we've got is a lead-acid battery that is nice and cheap but can perform as well as, or better than, the nickel-metal hydride technology, which we know is very expensive."

Green Car Congress reports that synthetic biofuels company Solazyme has been testing its algae based biodiesel, and has entered a development agreement with Chevron.

Vinod Khosla has a post on biomass at Grist, pondering the question "Where will biofuels and biomass feedstocks come from?". He has a set of measures for assessing biofuel investments he calls the CLAW requirements, which I think are a good benchmark, and is arguing cellulosic biofuels meet these standards.

C -- COST below gasoline
L -- low to no additional LAND use; benefits for using degraded land to restore biodiversity and organic material
A -- AIR quality improvements, i.e. low carbon emissions
W -- limited WATER use.

Also at Grist, Joseph Romm is encouraging everyone to "Turn on, plug in, drop out", noting that plug-in hybrids and electric cars are a core component of the solution to global warming (and peak oil for that matter).

Andrew Revkin at The New York Times has some notes (and a video) on the launch of the voyage of the Beluga and its SkySail.

The SMH reports that the new EU decree for deep carbon cuts has raised the ire of the US. Apparently the US thinks cutting carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 is a bad idea - as they sense climate criminals are going to be punished economically by the virtuous in the future. Hopefully we won't be joining them. More at Grist.

The Independent reports that the US has censored Arctic scientists' findings as it prepares for an auction of oil and gas acreage offshore Alaska.

Bloomberg and AFP report that China has shut about 5 percent of its coal-fired power plants, forcing 13 provinces to ration electricity as snowfalls and transportation delays hamper deliveries of the fuel.

Energy Bulletin points to an AP article reporting that Mexico's crude oil production fell 5.3 percent in 2007. Bart notes Mexican oil exports appear doomed - "I estimate that total liquids net exports fell at about -15%/year. Mexico is in the "red zone," with consumption close to 50% of production at peak production--the same range of consumption that caused UK and Indonesian net oil exports to crash to zero in seven and eight years respectively. I expect Mexican net exports to approach zero by 2014".

Stuart Staniford at The Oil Drum seems to have caused a storm of controversy by pointing out that industrial agriculture is likely to stay with us for many years, regardless of when the peak oil point occurs. The relocalisation movement hasn't taken kindly to this idea. I pointed out that relocalisation of agriculture isn't the only (or even the likely) response to peak oil back in "The Fat Man, the Green Revolution and The Population Bomb", a subject I'll be revisiting soon in one of those book reviews I like to unleash from time to time. Thankfully I didn't copy any flack for my observation (though Bart noted at the time this may only be because I try to be humorous - and perhaps because I was heaping criticism on lots of other targets as well).

Its worth noting that if (as Kahn and I both believe) that we can replace our energy needs that are derived from fossil fuels with renewable sources, then much of this argument [that farm yields will drop in the post peak period] is invalidated. A shift to a renewable energy based economy means that we can divert remaining oil, gas and coal supplies to the production of fertiliser, pesticides and the like instead of fuel, which changes the scenario outlined dramatically (without even considering alternative means of achieving the required agricultural productivity such as the biotech option mentioned above by Borlaug, or by organic farming techniques that I'll mention later).

Its worth noting what a lot of people seemed to miss - saying that relocalisation isn't inevitable isn't a criticism of those who choose to take up a farming lifestyle - if you enjoy or aspire to this type of lifestyle, go for it - the fact that the rest of the world may not be forced to follow the same path shouldn't really be an issue (and if it is, you are doing it for the wrong reasons).

On a related noted, Jason Bradford from Willits has a new site for "Energy Farms".

CNN has a report on a peak oil video game, with a spokesman from the maker saying “It may well change attitudes towards the use of these tactics as a political tool - players may think “of course we have to use military tactics to go take oil”". Great - maybe RI was right that we'll have a new wave of brainwashed teenagers who think just like Dick Cheney.

Bruce Sterling has a travelogue of his new hometown, Belgrade (or Beograd, to the locals) up on Youtube. Via The Inferior 4, a group blog by some science fiction writers which includes another one of my favourites, Lucius Shepherd.



In spite of my libertarian outlook there are some areas of the "economy" that I believe belong strictly to the government - with the usual caveat that there need to be plenty of checks and balances limiting the power of the aforesaid institution. Prisons (and the military) belong firmly in the "government only" camp. This article from The Atlantic on the Prison-Industrial Complex explains some of the reasons why the United States now imprisons more people than any other country in the world — around half a million more than (notionally) Communist China, which has 4 times the population. This is partly due to the privatisation of the prison system (and the organised lobbying that follows to try and maximise profits by increasing the "customer" base - particularly through the vehicle of the "war on drugs"), and partly because the US is now mostly in the grip of people exploiting "The Power Of Nightmares" rather than positive political messages. Presumably the lack of a real safety net for the poor doesn't help matters much either....

The Guardian has some notes on what a recession is like, for those too young to remember.

George Soros is getting into the financial doomerism (I wonder what his position is right now ?), with an article in the FT saying this is "The worst market crisis in 60 years".

Chalmers Johnson at TomDispatch has a look at America's perilous financial state, in "Why the Debt Crisis Is Now the Greatest Threat to the American Republic".

The military adventurers of the Bush administration have much in common with the corporate leaders of the defunct energy company Enron. Both groups of men thought that they were the "smartest guys in the room," the title of Alex Gibney's prize-winning film on what went wrong at Enron. The neoconservatives in the White House and the Pentagon outsmarted themselves. They failed even to address the problem of how to finance their schemes of imperialist wars and global domination.

As a result, going into 2008, the United States finds itself in the anomalous position of being unable to pay for its own elevated living standards or its wasteful, overly large military establishment. Its government no longer even attempts to reduce the ruinous expenses of maintaining huge standing armies, replacing the equipment that seven years of wars have destroyed or worn out, or preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries. Instead, the Bush administration puts off these costs for future generations to pay -- or repudiate. This utter fiscal irresponsibility has been disguised through many manipulative financial schemes (such as causing poorer countries to lend us unprecedented sums of money), but the time of reckoning is fast approaching.

There are three broad aspects to our debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defense" projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States. Simultaneously, we are keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segments of the American population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our manufacturing base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures -- so-called "military Keynesianism," which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. By military Keynesianism, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of our country. These are what economists call "opportunity costs," things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world's number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs -- an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing. ...

MSNBC reports that a study has shown what everyone with half a brain has known for many years - Bush led U.S. to war in Iraq on 'false pretenses'. And what did MSNBC say at the time ? Yes sir, Mr President !

I'll close with the Rude Pundit, who has some rude words about George Bush in honour of Martin Luther King day. While this guy was before my time (MLK, not the swearing guy), I've got to say his speeches are a cut above anything I see from our elected halfwits nowadays. When did political figures turn into androids (or incoherent idiots, in the case of Dubya) ?

Here's some excerpts from Martin Luther King, Jr. on "The Domestic Impact of the War," a speech delivered on November 11, 1967 to the National Labor Leadership Assembly for Peace:

"Now what are some of the domestic consequences of the war in Vietnam? It has made the Great Society a myth and replaced it with a troubled and confused society. The war has strengthened domestic reaction. It has given the extreme right, the anti-labor, anti-Negro, and anti-humanistic forces a weapon of spurious patriotism to galvanize its supporters into reaching for power, right up to the White House. It hopes to use national frustration to take control and restore the America of social insecurity and power for the privileged. When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events...

"In the past two months unemployment has increased approximately 15%. At this moment tens of thousands of people and anti-poverty programs are being abruptly thrown out of jobs and training programs to search in a diminishing job market for work and survival. It is disgraceful that a Congress that can vote upwards of $35 billion a year for a senseless immoral war in Vietnam cannot vote a weak $2 billion dollars to carry on our all too feeble efforts to bind up the wound of our nation's 35 million poor. This is nothing short of a Congress engaging in political guerrilla warfare against the defenseless poor of our nation.

"Thank God we have John Conyers is Congress. I only wish that we had more like him.

"The inflation of war cuts the pay of the employed, the pension check of the retired, and the savings of almost everyone. Inflation has stopped creeping and has begun running. Working people feel the double impact of inflation and unemployment immediately. But Negroes feel its impact with crushing severity because they live on the margin in all respects and have no reserve to cushion shock. There is a great deal of debate about the nation's ability to maintain war and commit the billions required to attack poverty. Theoretically the United States has resources for both. But an iron logic dictates that we shall never voluntarily do both for two reasons. First, the majority of the present Congress and the Administration, as distinguished from the majority of the people, is single-mindedly devoted to the pursuit of the war. It has been estimated by Senator (Harkey) that we spend approximately $500,000 to kill a single enemy soldier in Vietnam. And yet we spend about $53 for each impoverished American in anti-poverty programs. Congress appropriates military funds with alacrity and generosity. It appropriates poverty funds with miserliness and grudging reluctance. The government is emotionally committed to the war. It is emotionally hostile to the needs of the poor.

"Second, the government will resist committing adequate resources for domestic reform because these are reserves indispensable for a military adventure. The logical war requires of a nation deploy its well fought and immediate combat and simultaneously that it maintain substantial reserves. It will resist any diminishing of its military power through the draining off of resources for the social good. This is the inescapable contradiction between war and social progress at home. Military adventures must stultify domestic progress to ensure the certainty of military success. This is the reason the poor, and particularly Negroes, have a double stake in peace and international harmony. This is not to say it is useless to fight for domestic reform, on the contrary, as people discover in the struggle what is impeding their progress they comprehend the full and real cost of the war to them in their daily lives.

"Another tragic consequence of the war domestically is its destructive effect on the young generation. There cannot be enough sympathy for those who are sent into battle. More and more it is revealed how many of our soldiers cannot understand the purpose of their sacrifice. It is harrowing under any circumstance to kill but it is psychologically devastating to be forced to kill when one doubts it is right."

When President George W. Bush spoke about the economy last Friday, he did not mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For most Republicans and many Democrats, the economy and the war exist in separate, vacuum-sealed rooms. (Let's be clear here: None of the viable Democratic candidates for president make that leap. Hillary Clinton's economic stimulus proposal makes no linkage to the hundreds of billions spent on the wars. Barack Obama and John Edwards do not, either.)

When Bush makes whatever bullshit little speech he makes today, it will be like John Wayne Gacy praising the work of Marian Wright Edelman. Once he began to speak out against the Vietnam War, King knew, fucking knew, that economic justice was inextricably bound to the grotesque exercise of a nation fighting a war that was to the detriment of and against the will of the vast majority of its citizens.

Everyone in power knows goddamn well the easiest way to make all economic dreams come true. King saw that inaction on the domestic front was a natural consequence of warmongers and their cowardly complicitors. It would fuck Bush's shit up to have a voice out there that couldn't be marginalized by the media (a la Kucinich or Paul), calling out the morally spineless for their failure to act.