The Future of Energy Production?

You’ve seen me cover a potential solution for an alternative fuel in the form of algae, perhaps one of our most plentiful natural resources.  Now I’m going to cover alternatives in the area of power production.

Electrical power is necessary.  It powers a great many of our appliances.  There’s only one problem: right now our power is produced by power plants that throw out a bunch of pollutants into our atmosphere.  Could there be an economically viable free-market solution to cheap energy that is environmentally friendly?  Let’s explore some of these options.

By far the option for which I hold a great deal of skepticism is one I came across on the internet.  It involves building a device capable of harnessing supposedly free electrical energy.  It involves the theories of Nikola Tesla, an undisputed genius in the field of harnessing electrical energy.  The world of AC power was built using many of Tesla’s patents.  The theory is that there is a great wealth of electrical energy trapped in the ionosphere and the proposed device would harness it.  More information on this device can be found here:

http://www.teslasecret.com

Some of the less far-fetched ideas include such things as solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower.  Solar and wind power pose 2 problems.  The primary problem is that both methods of power generation rely on a near constant supply of favorable weather conditions, a rather large statistical impossibility.  The second problem is that wind turbines and solar panels cost a mint to manufacture and install.  If anybody who reads this blog knows of less costly ways that solar and wind power can be harnessed, please be my guest and by all means leave a comment or perhaps a link to your blog where you may have addressed it.

Geothermal power generation also poses certain dangers that give me serious doubts as to whether or not the benefit outweighs the risk.  One wrong move tapping into a geothermal vent and you could have an environmental disaster on your hands rivaling Chernobyl.

Hydropower is by far our most viable option at the moment I think.  Hydropower involves using the force of moving water to rotate a large turbine.  the rotation of the turbine produces mechanical energy that can then be converted into electrical power.

But perhaps another method can be devised that would be on par with hydropower.  Because hydropower has one drawback.  In desert areas that are nowhere near any bodies of water, those areas would not be able to make use of any of it.  This method carries the misnomer of “perpetual motion machine,”  a thought that is the fanciful product of pseudoscience.  But i think it might be possible to have a turbine similar to the kind used in hydropower plants.  But instead of the force of moving water being applied to the turbine, the turbine is instead made to rotate by the application of magnetic force.  Magneto-power anyone?

So what do you think?  Is there anything to that Tesla device or should we stick with what we know works?  Or could magnetopower be the wave of the future, especially for dry areas that don’t have enough water to make use of hydropower?  Although it would be the height of irony if the answer to our energy crisis did originate with a man who lived over 100 years ago.

Algae: Our Possible Future As An Alternative Fuel Source? You Decide!

In a previous blog I wrote about how us conservatives always seem to get a bad rep in, besides issues regarding the needy (which I’ve addressed in numerous other blogs), that we also have  a bad rep on issues regarding “going green.”

It’s not that I wouldn’t like to see us move to more environmentally friendly sources of fuel and energy, it’s that the ideas liberals have proposed thus far for doing so oftentimes involve much more government control over our private lives than the Founding Fathers intended.  This in turn creates an environment where “going green” costs lots of….well….green (pardon the pun).  I mean, have you seen the price of organic items?  To shop organic you’d have to be part of the “rich and famous” crowd.  For example an alternative to artificial sweeteners like splenda is in the organic section of Wegman’s called xylitol, a sugar alcohol that, unlike sugar, metabolizes independently of insulin, causing very little, if any rise in blood glucose levels.  A lot of sugar-free chocolates use a sugar alcohol like xylitol as the sweetener.  They also have  a rather unfortunate side-effect when consumed in excess quantities.  Let’s just say that if you plan to consume a sugar alcohol in excess quantities you’d better have plenty of Immodium handy.  Anyhow, the bags of xylitol in the organic food section at Wegman’s were $8 – $9 apiece.  Yikes!  I think I’ll stick with Splenda thank you very much.  Or at the very least Truvia, an all natural sweetener that is a blend of stevia and erythritol, another sugar alcohol commonly found in grapes.

Anyhow, back to alternative fuel.

One example of a liberal idea that would not be viable is that they’ve bandied about the idea of using corn and other land-based crops as an ethanol source.  This is problematic because a lot of these crops are also used as food sources.  And there’s already a high enough demand on crop farmers such as corn farmers to produce enough to be used as food.  To add on demand for use of corn as an ethanol source would quickly become more than most corn farmers could produce.  Another problem arises when you consider the amount of time it takes to grow most land-based crops.  So not only would total aggregate demand outpace supply in this area, but producing the supply of corn itself (and other land crops) is a very time-intensive process.

Another problematic idea was the idea to use water as fuel for cars.  I think everybody knows that water would be of no use in a combustion engine, as water does not burn.  About the only way it could be used is to redesign a car engine to work not as a combustion engine but as an engine that would break apart the water molecules and use the hydrogen as fuel and expel the oxygen out the exhaust pipe.  And that’s problematic because the Engine would already have to have a certain amount of energy available to it to initialize that process, as any student of chemistry knows that it requires an investment of energy to break a molecular bond.

But what most people have overlooked is the possibility of using algae as an alternative fuel source, one that has the potential to compete with crude oil.  For one thing there’s currently not a very high demand for using algae as a source of food.  About the only people that use it for food are those of Asian decent, otherwise there tends to be very little demand for algae as a food product.  I once tried a seaweed cracker and found that the taste left something to be desired.  So you could grow crops of algae and use nearly the whole crop for the purposes of fuel production.

Algae can produce a lot of oil.  Many estimates put algae as having a good 60% of its weight in oil and potential oil yields of roughly 26,000 gallons per hectare of algae, give or take a few hundred.  That sounds like a pretty decent yield to me.  Thus many estimates that I’ve come across state that we wouldn’t need much more than 15,000 square miles total in algae crops to fulfill our needs in the area of oil production.

Algae is also nature’s multi-purpose tool.  The leftover plant matter from extracting the oil could be used to make organic animal feed, which would in turn free up some more of the corn supply since right now corn is the popular thing to use to make animal feed.  It could also be used to make those biomass charcoal briquette substitutes that I see all the time at Wegman’s in their organic section.  The leftovers could also be fermented to produce an alcohol that could be used as a fuel, like ethanol.  Though I think fermenting it into propanol or butanol would make better sense because ethanol is also used as a drinking alcohol.  So if you used ethanol as a fuel source you’d probably see people at the fuel pump station fueling themselves up rather than the car, unless you were to add some sort of toxin to the supply of ethanol to be used for fuel that would render it not for human consumption.  Making the leftovers into propanol or butanol would make better sense because those aren’t drinking alcohols and so no toxin would be needed.  Those alcohols are toxic enough on their own for human consumption.  Crude oil is also used as a source of large hydrocarbons that get sent to a hydrocarbon cracking station to make propene molecules, which are then hydrolized to make isopropyl alcohol, a popular first aid item.  Algae could be easily substituted here as the oil source.

Algae also has another advantage.  Unlike most land-based crops, algae grows much more rapidly.  I imagine you could have a crop of algae ready for use in much less time than a crop of corn.  Also, you could have 2 different types of algae crops going: one with high lipid content for use in oil production and another with high carbohydrate content which could be fermented into whichever alcohol you think could be better used as a fuel.  Or you could have a third crop to ferment into ethanol and sell it as moonshine….LOL!

So, could algae be our best bet as an economically viable and environmentally friendly source of fuel for our automobiles?  You decide!  As always my comment board is open.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas my faithful (and few….:-P) readers!

*looks to PC advisor and whispers*….Did I offend anybody with that?  Oh?  Just all the free-speech hating liberals?  Ok….cool.

This Christmas season, let us remember our greatest and most powerful gift as members of the human race.  We are capable of a life-giving love so pure, so chaste, that we would give of our very lives for our fellow man.

So many people use this time of year to ramp up the demonization of those who have wealth.  These people forget that the pursuit of producing wealth is not wrong on its own power.  It is our intentions for doing so that can be called into question.  There are some who pursue wealth because they love money more than their fellow man, leading to the other extreme of poor people getting so jealous of what others have that they would be willing to break 2 of the 10 Commandments (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods & Thou Shalt not steal) to get it.

On the whole though a lot of poor people I think are much richer.  Because the Scrooges of the world, like the man at the beginning of the movie, have wealth.  But those people are poor because they are lacking in love.  Despite all they have they are miserable because of that deficiency.  On the other hand I’ve met successful people who have plenty of compassion for those in need and some poor people who are so lacking in love that instead of working to obtain their “fair share” of the American Dream like the rest of us they covet what they don’t have.

Because, in the end, it matters not how much money you have.  What matters more is that you keep love, which comprises the entire essence of the Christmas spirit, alive in your hearts all year round.  Christmas isn’t the only time of year we need to remember our capacity for love.  Christmas is something that we would all do well to keep all the time and never lose sight of.  It’s the time of year when we were given the greatest gift of all: the gift of God Himself, incarnate in human flesh, to be given for us in bloody recompense for our human failings.  And we, who are made in His image and likeness, can do no less than to love one another as He loves us.

O Lord, dear sweet Father in Heaven, I pray that by Your grace we may have the strength of spirit to keep the Christmas gift alive in our hearts all year round by remembering those in need not just during this season but all the time.  Amen.

Keynesian Economics: Say what?

John Maynard Keynes deserves an award.  His theories regarding economics are perhaps the most convoluted and the most lacking in common sense that I have ever seen.  Ironically enough it’s his economic theories that are being taught in class today.  Oh joy, another generation of people on credit cards.

You see, Mr. Keynes’s economic theories state that deficit spending on the part of government actually helps the economy by somehow increasing aggregate demand and consumption, which somehow leads to increased production.  Say what now?  The government prints more money and borrows more money to finance it.  Problem solved, right?  Wrong!  You see there’s one slight problem.  Borrowed money must be PAID BACK.  Where do you think the money is gonna come from when the countries our government borrows from to finance deficit spending get tired of stringing us along and begin to call our debts?  That’s right, the US taxpayer.  Taxes will increase dramatically in order to pay back all these foreign loans, leading to a dramatic increase in the cost of goods and services.  Leaving us with LESS money in our pockets to spend.  Guess what that would lead to?  That’s right, LESS consumption?  Care to take a guess at what LESS consumption does?  That’s right.  It leads to a DECREASE in aggregate demand for good and services.  And finally LESS demand for goods and services leads to LESS production, which then leads to an economic DOWNTURN, not an economic upswing as Keynes theorizes.

Keynes has epically FAILED to learn from history.  There is an economic theory as old as time itself that people have subscribed to in flourishing societies: You cannot spend money you do not have.  Or, to put it bluntly: Ya can’t spend what ya ain’t got!  Or if you do have to borrow, make darn sure you earn enough to pay it back!  I’d say that economic FACT is more sensible than one that says “can’t pay it back?  borrow more!”

And these are the theories widely accepted and taught in our economics classes today over economics based on working with an actual budget?  Pathetic!

Government Welfare: Stealing? Yes!

Many people I’m sure have read my blogs regarding true charity and how forced taxation is not true charity for the poor because it’s the government telling you how to spend your hard-earned money.  This concept goes by another name: STEALING!  There is NO moral justification for stealing, no matter how badly you might need some food, water, clothing, or money.

How does government welfare equate to this most grievous of violations against another person’s property, you ask?  Simple.  Think about the nature of government welfare.  Their nature forces them to obtain funding through taxes.  Taxes are something that we the people have no choice but to pay.  The government takes this money and gives it to the poor people.  If the poor people did this directly we would rightfully call that stealing, but because the poor people have gotten the government to do it for them it’s somehow A-OK?

A lot of people, even some of my Catholic brethren, including some clergy, have forgotten that while we have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to serve the needs of the poor people, Church teaching also says that those in need must also be Christ-like, and Christ never would’ve stolen money from people nor would he have used the Roman government to do the stealing for him through taxes.

Therefore, government welfare does not constitute charity at all.  It does just the opposite.  What government does through these programs is turn an entire class of people into thieves, thereby continuing, not abolishing, class warfare.  The only way poor people can truly be helped is to help them with basic necessities in the short term, while at the same time helping them to help themselves by teaching them skills that they can take to the job market and get a decent job so that they can obtain such basic necessities as food, water, clothing, and even perhaps some creature comforts, on their own power.  That is how poverty is truly treated.

People don’t seem to realize that the needy also have a moral obligation to obey the law.  This means that the needy only have a right to ask that people help them out of the goodness of their hearts, not to force or use government to force people to help them.

The preamble to the US Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice how it states to PROMOTE, not PROVIDE, the general welfare.  There’s a world of difference between the 2 terms.  “Promote the general welfare” means that government must provide en environment by which people can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps by fostering a free market where both commerce and true charity can flourish.  If the founding fathers instead had “provide” instead of “promote” for general welfare we would have an environment where government turns poor people into nothing more than thieves by stealing money from us and giving it to the poor.

There are some people who don’t mind that government welfare programs only use government to enable the poor people to steal from hard-working American citizens.  Who don’t mind that poor people essentially use the government to commit a crime that is rightfully called stealing.  To those people I say that if you like having poor people, or anybody for that matter steal from you through government, move to a communist country, like China.  Then see what promoting socialism over using the free market to provide true charity gets you.

Note: My good friend and former roomie Tom did point me out to a clarification I should make.  I neglected to include the keyword “unwittingly.”  this grievous exclusion of that keyword on my part did make it sound like I was generalizing and accusing a whole class of people of being thieves.  I should have said that with these welfare programs government is UNWITTINGLY, i.e., without the knowledge or consent of the needy, turning the needy into thieves by stealing our money through taxation and giving it to them.  And THAT is the difference between actual thievery on the part of the needy and government welfare programs.  In government welfare programs the thievery is being done indirectly and the needy are none the wiser because the needy don’t care where the money is coming from.  But I would bet that if it were explained to the needy in this way that the needy would also be all for the same gradual changeover from government welfare to private charity services  that I support

God hates Fags?

“God hates Fags” is the rallying cry of the nuts at the Westboro Baptist Church who gives Christians everywhere a bad name by going to funerals of our brave men and women who fought, bled, and died for our nation that the liberties for which she stands.  This sickened me so much I finally decided to write a blog about it.

Everybody who’s read my blog knows what I have to say regarding marriage and the homosexual lifestyle.  And I would hope that everybody who’s read my blog knows that I speak such truth with nothing but compassion (or I try to anyway though sometimes my snarkiness gets the better of me at times…..LOL).  Meaning that while I firmly believe that there can be no moral or legal equivalent between homosexual and heterosexual couplings, I do NOT hate gay people, or any other people for that matter.

This is because of one basic difference: The “Christians” at WBC, drawing upon the sacred Scripture that all Christians make use of, have somehow come up with a God who hates.  Whereas true Christians like myself and others, when examining the same Scriptures (and in the case of my Catholic Christian faith sacred Tradition), we come up with a God who hates sin, but is full of infinite love, mercy, and grace for sinners who choose to turn back to Him.  Same information regarding God, yet the WBC tries to tell us that God hates?  Incredible.  They are Christians in Name Only if that is what they truly believe.

Every faith has its nutty zealots.  I apologize to all sinners everywhere who have had the misfortune to come into contact with ours in the WBC when making first contact with Christendom.  Truly I am, for I have said it once and I will say it again, when the truth needs to be spoken, it must be spoken with no malice towards the sinner, only the sin.  If one attempts to speak the truth with malice towards the sinner then truth is corrupted and you will push those you are attempting to bring the light of Christ’s message to even further away from His Light.

The controversial Mosque

And so it begins: the building of a mosque by a Muslim cleric who by all accounts thus far has proven himself to be very radical in his Islamic faith, on a site where radical Muslims committed the greatest atrocity our soil has ever seen in many years: the wanton destruction f at least 3,000 innocent lives.  What in the world are these idiots thinking?!?!?!?!

People like me are called bigots and throwing the First Amendment out the window with regard to this controversy.  Am I?  By all accounts, the cleric has declared his radical intentions by being unwilling to call a spade a spade and declare Hamas the terrorist organization it has shown itself to be.  He also states that America must become more in compliance with Shariah Law.

Shariah Law is perhaps one of the worst system of laws ever conceived, very anti-thetical to our Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the freedoms granted by the First Amendment.  Under this system of laws if the clerics even SUSPECT a woman of adultery, that woman is stoned to death along with her unborn child if she’s carrying one (and they say they are against abortion, riiiiiiight).  Under this system of laws a person incurs the penalty of death for rejecting Islam.  And this is the system of laws that this cleric would like to see America adopt?!?!?!

Samuel Adams once said: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” (from http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/samuel+adams)

Well I will adapt this quote to say that if your religious beliefs are offensive to the American culture of liberty and justice for all, as radical Islam is, then go home from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands of your master (in radical Islam’s case, Shariah Law).  May the chains of your servitude set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.  So if standing against those who seek nothing but the complete and total submission of our nation to the radical Islamist Shariah Law makes me a bigot, then I am proud to be called one.

The True Value and Worth of Women in Mary

Today, where we as Catholics celebrate the Assumption, Fr. Mark Noonan gave what is likely one of the most powerful sermons regarding the true dignity and worth of women using Mary, Blessed Virgin and Mother, as an example.

In Catholic tradition we believe that Mary’s heart was completely and purely dedicated to Our Lord and thus in return God preserved her free of the stain of original sin in order to sanctify her as Queen of the Prophets.  Thus did Our Lord through elevate women to a status never before seen: from something to be possessed to something worth waiting for.

In this sermon he said that a guy who loves a woman should not say “I love you.”  Any idiot can say that.  A true man is one who says instead of “I love you” to a woman says “you are worth waiting for” and backs it up with his actions.  St. Paul enjoins wives to be submissive to their husbands as Mary was submissive to Our Lord.  In turn he also enjoins husbands to love their wives as Christ loves His Church.  In this we have the true model of family, where the man of the house derives his authority from Christ and the woman of the house lives like Mary in many ways and submits herself to her husband’s authority unless his authority starts to become distinct un-Christ-like.  It is then the woman’s moral duty to stand up and display her equal dignity and worth in Mary.  It is then woman’s moral duty to correct her husband should he cease using Christ as the model of his authority.

The main message of Fr Mark Noonan and this blog is this:  that women have a dignity and worth that like every other human being far surpasses the imperfect and sinful things of this world.  Also, the true way to attract men is through woman’s quiet dignity and worth, not by having the woman behave in provocative ways.  Oftentimes, when women dress provocatively the type of men they tend to attract have intentions that are less than honorable.  When women begin to view themselves as having a dignity and worth that surpasses the world and all its carnal and base desires, and men begin to respect that dignity and worth of women, only then can true sexual freedom for both men and women exist.

Rand Paul: Civil Rights Gaffe or Fact?

I felt compelled to write about Rand Paul’s supposed “gaffe” on the Rachel Maddow show.  For those who aren’t familiar with the “gaffe,” Mr. Paul said that he supported the original intent of the Civil Rights Act, which was to accord to blacks equal dignity as befits their status as living, breathing human beings.  He did not, however, support the provision in the Civil Rights Act that banned businesses from discriminating.

It would first behoove us to discuss what the Civil Rights Act essentially does.  Before this act, if a crime was committed against a black person, it was swept under the rug.  Black people basically had no legal recourse if a crime was committed against them.  This law gave them that recourse.  However, those who drafted the act wrongly thought that a white person refusing to do business with a black person was a crime.  It is not a crime to refuse to do business with anybody, no matter what your motivation may be for such a refusal to do business.  Like Rand Paul said, it is a bad business model, as such a discriminatory business practice likely will backfire and cause his business to suffer.

But if that person wishes to risk his business in such a fashion, Rand Paul essentially asks one simple question, who is the government to stop them?  If a person wishes to risk his business on a bad discriminatory practice, that is his right.  The free market will eventually squeeze him out as more and more people simply refuse in like fashion to do business with a racist.  So in his comments on the Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul is correct.  Refusing to do business with someone based on a person’s skin color is wrong, and not only that constitutes a bad business model as well, but the business owner does have that right.  We do not have an unalienable right to a business owner’s good’s and services.  A business owner has the right to refuse to do business with someone.  That is what Rand Paul basically stated.  But because the words he chose to describe his stance were perhaps ill-chosen, he is vilified by the liberal left.

Abortion, Contraception, and Social Security

I’ve heard a lot in the news recently about all kinds of budget shortfalls.  The most notable of these shortfalls is Social Security.  To be sure, a large part of our deficits stem from out of control spending and the belief that we as  a nation can borrow our way out of this mess.

But for this blog I intend to talk about Social Security and the effect that pushing abortion, contraception, and by extension the devaluing of the institution that gives new life back to society because of the participation in this institution of men and women who wish to commit themselves to each other.  That institution is the natural law institution of marriage.

People are under the erroneous impression that they pay into the Social Security system for themselves, and liberals have done absolutely nothing to discourage this impression they have of Social Security.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The SS system is set up so that members of the workforce pay into the system for the people going into retirement ahead of them.  So we are paying for others’ retirement and others are paying for our own retirement under this system.  Aside from the affront to liberty regarding our own monetary affairs that this system represents, there is only one way that this system could work out mathematically: the government must value human life and dignity above all else and it must value marriage as the life-giving institution that it is.  If the government ceases to do this, which it has, you wind up with more people entering retirement than there are people in the workforce to support their SS checks.

Back in the early days of SS, it did work out mathematically.  People entering into retirement had at least a good 3  or 4 people paying into the SS system for them.  This was because back then people never would’ve thought to kill their own child at any otherwise viable stage of human development or to glorify the devaluing of the sexual act as a mere tool to be used only for the satisfaction of base and carnal desires through the pushing of contraceptive use.  But then people began to push for these things in the name of so-called “choice and freedom.”  We bear stark witness today to the horrible and rotten fruits of this terrible push for the “right” to kill your own child and the “right” to devalue our greatest and most powerful gift, the gift that allows us to give to society in the form of new life.

Because of these things, the devaluing of human life as a blight upon “Mother Earth” rather than the gift to the world human life is, and of the sexual act that leads to new life, our population is aging.  Whereas in the early days there were fewer people retiring than were people in the workforce, today there are more people retiring than there are people in the workforce to support them through SS.  The fruits of this secular humanistic approach that the liberals are so fond of has wrought terrible fruits indeed, not only politically and socially but now economically.  The system is collapsing not just because of out-of-control government spending, but by the simple mathematical fact that there are fewer people in the workforce than there are people retiring.  The foundation of support for the elderly through social security, workers, is collapsing as a result of the push for those immoral things.

So because of the glorification by the left of the immorality of lifestyles that dissociate the unitive act from the procreative act and of lifestyles that are by nature closed to the gift of new life (seeking a moral equivalency between the homosexual lifestyle and the special and unique life-giving love that can only exist between a man and a woman), we witness today the severe economic repercussions of such glorification.  All of these have led to a vacuum that people wrongly look to unconstitutional expansion of government to fill, when the proper solution is to restore life and liberty and the natural law that gave us these things to their rightful place in our Republic.

As for the homosexual lifestyle, I would like to add that liberals will, and have, lied about the nature of this lifestyle in order to make people who live with this unnatural lifestyle feel good about their sinful behavior by calling it love.  That is patently incorrect, for the love that can only exist between a man and a woman naturally is our greatest act of charity as human beings.  In this act man and woman give themselves totally to each other, and through their selfless act of commitment to each other give back to society in the form of the most wondrous gift of new human life.  The homosexual lifestyle is rightfully known as unnatural and carnal precisely because by its very nature the homosexual lifestyle dissociates the unitive act from the procreative act of our sexual gifts by being intrinsically closed to this gift of new human life.