Category Archives: Energy

Fungus Diesel Discovery

Wired reports that Rainforest Fungus Naturally Synthesizes Diesel:

A fungus that lives inside trees in the Patagonian rain forest naturally makes a mix of hydrocarbons that bears a striking resemblance to diesel, biologists announced today. And the fungus can grow on cellulose, a major component of tree trunks, blades of grass and stalks that is the most abundant carbon-based plant material on Earth.

“When we looked at the gas analysis, I was flabbergasted,” said Gary Strobel, a plant scientist at Montana State University, and the lead author of a paper in Microbiology describing the find. “We were looking at the essence of diesel fuel.”

The beauty of the diesel engine is that Rudolf Diesel wanted fuel to be available in abundance. He specifically did not want people to have to use engines that depended on limited sources, especially those controlled by powerful oil corporations. Thus, it should not be too much of a surprise that the Gliocladium roseum fungus can break down wood and turn it into something akin to diesel fuel. It does, however, surprise me that there is now a question of whether petroleum is actually a byproduct of an ancient conversion by organisms.

2009 Jetta TDI

W00t. The TDI is coming to America again in 2009. Hybrid Cars has a review:

By most accounts, clean diesel is beginning to make its run into the automotive mainstream in the United States. So, we decided to take the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI out for a test drive to judge for ourselves.

“If any car is going to wake America up to the diesel movement, it’s this one,” Ben Davis, road test producer for PBS’s MotorWeek, told Hybridcars.com. The Jetta TDI’s combined benefits—high performance, high fuel economy, and small carbon footprint—come at the right price: about $22,000.

Very cool.

We achieved 36.4 miles per gallon with the Jetta TDI in a 181-mile mixed driving loop in an around the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area. The test was comprised of approximately 70 percent highway driving, and 30 percent city driving. The results put this compact diesel ahead of most subcompact cars, and on par with many hybrids currently on the market.

The Jetta TDI is powered by a 2.0-liter common rail turbocharged engine—producing 140 horsepower and an eye-opening 236 pound-feet of torque. The high torque output is characteristic of a diesel powertrain, resulting in very fast launches from zero, and effortless acceleration on the highway.

Couldn’t agree more. These new diesels are phenomenal. Old diesel is like driving a cart pulled by a horse. The new diesels are peppy and fun to drive; no comparison to any diesel made before 2004.

I posted a comment on the Hybrid Cars site too after I read some of the disinformation written by others.

Pentagon JLTV Power

The Danger Room sounds unhappy with the management decision to focus on rapid production and deployment for the HumVee replacement, instead of cool new power-plants:

The new trucks, known as Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, are supposed to be tricked out with the latest in vehicle survivability and electronics. But when it comes to the propulsion system, Pentagon seems to have taken a more conservative approach. Rather than opting for a riskier, Prius-style hybrid, the Pentagon seems to be placing a premium on vehicles that could go into production relatively quickly.

This brings to mind an earlier report, which highlighted a “‘Byzantine’ acquisition system that pushes bureaucrats to protect their own programs and priorities, rather than seeking out the best available option”. What is the incentive to seek the best option, let alone who defines best? I still see a lot of “conservative” vehicles on the road, so why would people suddenly think differently, more logically if you will, when they become bureaucrats?

The real irony of all this is that a failure to deploy armor quickly is said to have precipitated IED use, which now in turn has generated a $166 billion purchase order for armored vehicles that can be deployed quickly. That kind of back-patting pocket-filling economic model has to be discouraging for anyone trying to respond in real-time to threats and actually save lives.

The question now really should be whether $166 billion could prevent or at least anticipate further evolution of IEDs (very likely not, since the design is moving in such a “conservative” fashion), or if the money could be better spent infiltrating human networks of bombers to generate support from Iraqis.

Afghanistan Strategy by Brzezinski

The article is called West Must Avoid Russia’s Mistakes in Afghanistan, and who better to explain how to do that than the man who led the armament and training of Afghan mujahedeen: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

His main point seems to be that the US will fail if it tries to impose its own vision of government, backed by military force, rather than allow political forces within the country emerge on their own. He also says that a major shakedown of the country to “root” out opponents will backfire. Perhaps most interesting, however, is his cost model for fighting drugs:

Simply trying to wipe out the poppies and deprive the farmers of income will not undercut the Taliban, it will strengthen them. The Europeans should pay the Afghan farmers as much as it takes to abandon drug crops. The Europeans should do that because most of these drugs go to Europe. The drug problem in Afghanistan is simultaneously a source of income for the Taliban and a serious threat to Europe. In this respect, the European responsibility for dealing with it is self-evident.

Makes sense, but good luck selling that one to the EU or even the US. Bombs are easy to explain. Who is going to be able to win broad support for a policy that pays foreign farmers to help with domestic security?

Speaking of money, the Danger Room reports that lots of it is being directed into technology companies started by ex-Pentagon executives to achieve…wait for it…nation-building:

The goal of the tech-heavy effort is not only to avoid a Hurricane Katrina repeat. It’s to get better at stabilizing failed states that could easily slip into radical hands. But first, the boys in uniform have to get over their traditional reluctance to cooperate with civilians.

Nation-building, perhaps by default, has become a core mission for the U.S. military.

Has become? Has been for a long time, albeit only small portions of the military. Russia failed at this on a much more costly scale and Brzezinski warns not to repeat their mistakes. Danger Room goes on to explain there might be a silver lining:

The project is called STAR-TIDES (Sustainable Technologies, Accelerated Research-Transportable Infrastructures for Development and Emergency Support). The acronym may be long, but the concept is simple: it is supposed to pull together cheap and effective solutions for humanitarian emergencies or post-war reconstruction.

I’ve been working on just such a plan for the past five years with an ex-military guy myself. My car was running on fuel from a STAR-TIDES-like energy plant for about six months. Wonder if there is a case now to be made for funding. In any case I think the answer here is to remove the military from the equation and get them out of the nation-building game entirely. Let them innovate for their own needs and then pass on the knowledge. No need for management by the brass or ex-brass, thank you. That’s more likely to succeed than trying to overcome the (arguably well-reasoned) American culture and laws that still separate the army from domestic affairs.