Spokane7
68°
September 28, 2011 in Business, Region
Washington gets $80 million for biofuels research
YAKIMA, Wash. — The U.S. Department of Agriculture is awarding $80 million in grants to consortiums led by Washington state’s two largest universities to research the conversion of Pacific Northwest wood and forest residues into biofuels.
The awards to be announced today by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are among the largest awarded by the agency and mark the federal government’s latest efforts to develop biofuels and regional renewable-energy markets.
Researchers say wood biofuels have the potential to help the region recover from the loss of natural resource jobs in recent years and utilize existing infrastructure, such as timber and pulp mills, to serve another regional powerhouse: the airline industry.
The University of Washington will lead a consortium of universities and businesses in a $40 million project to research converting poplar trees that are grown on plantations to aviation, diesel and gasoline fuels, while Washington State University will lead another $40 million project to research the potential for using residual wood after logging and forest thinning for aviation fuel.
Partners in the two projects include universities, research entities and corporations, such as timber giant Weyerhaeuser and the largest poplar grower in North American, from Washington and nine other states: Oregon, Colorado, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Montana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.
“This is an opportunity to create thousands of new jobs and drive economic development in rural communities across America by building the framework for a competitively-priced, American-made biofuels industry,” Vilsack said Wednesday in a statement. Vilsack was scheduled to announce the awards from atop the roof of a Seattle-Tacoma International Airport terminal.
For years, much of the focus has been on developing ethanol for automobile use, but in recent months, the federal government has increased efforts to develop biofuels for other uses.
Air travel is responsible for about 3 percent of greenhouse gases, and airlines have been seeking ways to control their fluctuating fuel costs and reduce their carbon footprint by turning to alternative fuel sources that can be interchanged with petroleum-based kerosene. The Pentagon has pushed forward on a research project to produce algae-based biofuel, while airlines have considered a range of options, including cooking oil and a combination of coconut oil and babassu oil, which comes from a palm tree in northern Brazil.
Last month, President Obama announced a partnership to invest up to $510 million over three years to produce advanced aviation and marine biofuels to power military and commercial transportation.
Keys to the success of the UW project include developing tree varieties to best suit refineries — which could include five or more biorefineries similar to a 250,000-gallon-a year demonstration project being built in Boardman, Ore. — and growing them within a reasonable distance of refineries, said Jeff Nuss, president and chief executive officer of GreenWood Resources of Portland, Ore., a key partner on the grant and the largest poplar grower in North America.
The WSU project will evaluate biofuels from planting through growing, harvest and conversion to ensure an economically viable industry, said Norman Lewis, who heads up the Institute of Biological Chemistry at Washington State University.
“We are looking at all the bottlenecks that have prevented these things from being readily converted before,” he said. “We think there is potential to replace some of the natural resource jobs lost in the region in recent years.”
Researchers said they also will focus on ensuring that any new technologies developed in the projects translate to viable industries, something other biofuels efforts have garnered criticism for by failing to accomplish. That means helping landowners understand if they should grow wood products for the new industry, training workers, and educating school children, college students and communities about the biofuels industry, particularly those likely to be affected by or to benefit from its development.
Production of fuels and chemicals from biomass will be a huge industrial enterprise in the future, said Richard Gustafson, a University of Washington professor of forest resources and a lead on the UW project.
“It is essential that it be sustainable from an economic, environmental and social point of view,” he said. “The research lays the foundation for building a sustainable enterprise before large scale commercialization.”
Overall, the five-year program announced by the Agriculture Department Wednesday includes more than $136 million in research and development grants to public- and private-sector partners in 22 states. In addition to Washington, university partners from Louisiana, Tennessee and Iowa will lead projects to focus in part on developing aviation biofuels from tall grasses, crop residues and forest resources.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Seven firms or nonprofits win Agora Awards 
Dazzeetrader11 on September 28 at 9:58 a.m.
This money will buy lots of rent and lots of coffee. Nothing will come of it. It does seem that the US is intent on passing out lots of money for not much these days. I suppose Catwell and Obama will pop up somewhere and take credit for this.
Biofuels simply have NOT proven out. This, of course, dovetails into the green movement which has simply not proven out except in some of the advocates’ checkbooks. Common sense is free. This type of “gift” isn’t.
Universites do well with this type of money. The rest of the public pays for it but gets very little. Jobs! ..not with this. Just a headline.
mdriftmeyer on September 28 at 10:37 a.m.
Perhaps Spokesman can actual link to useful information:
http://news.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=27839&TypeID=1
http://www.nararenewables.org/
WHS on September 28 at 10:55 a.m.
Dazzee, you really are uninformed aren’t you… I mean I have listened to you and your ilk pontificate repeatedly about less reliance on foreign oil, drill-baby-drill and other such BS. Now, here we have a renewable source of energy that can be 100% derived from local resources and what do you say… That it doesn’t pan out?
Here I will do a cut-n-paste for you. First for the Pro side:
“There are many eco-benefits to replacing oil with biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel. For one, since such fuels are derived from agricultural crops, they are inherently renewable—and our own farmers typically produce them domestically, reducing our dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil. Additionally, ethanol and biodiesel emit less particulate pollution than traditional petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuels. They also do not contribute to global warming, since they only emit back to the environment the carbon dioxide (CO2) that their source plants absorbed out of the atmosphere in the first place.”
Now for the negative:
“…After factoring in the energy needed to grow crops and then convert them into biofuels, Cornell University researcher David Pimental concludes that the numbers just don’t add up. His 2005 study found that producing ethanol from corn required 29 percent more energy than the end product itself is capable of generating. He found similarly troubling numbers in making biodiesel from soybeans.
“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,” Pimentel says.”
HOWEVER! Since this data is now 6yrs old, don’t you think it would be prudent for America to invest in a little more research. Maybe we are making headway and by golly, if we are then we should continue… However, without research and data, how will we know? So, I honestly think this is a good investment for our money.
WHS
dataxman on September 28 at 11:16 a.m.
WHS - unless the laws of physics have suddenly changed, the energy needed to make bio-diesel isn’t going to change due to the passage of time.
The US’s decision to mandate ethanol - while keeping the sugar quotas and import duties in place - was one of the leading causes of the unrest around the world. Since we couldn’t use sugar based ethanol we used corn based, which jacked up the price of corn. So now we are going to shovel money at the cellulose theory. Yet those crops have to be grown - and if grown in sufficient quantity to make a difference will result in crop rotation out of food-stuffs into grass/trees.
Basically $80,000,000.00 borrowed dollars piddled down the drain…
misjustice on September 28 at 11:33 a.m.
Good! Being a Periwinkle Blue State whille we have a Democratic President in the Whitehouse finally starts to pay off; I love Federal pork!
Oops! I meant, it’s great to have the funds available for our universities to be able to do important research into possible alternative energy sources.
GO TEAM!
; )
RedCedar on September 28 at 11:33 a.m.
I obtain sustainable carbon-neutral heat from my state of the art biomass energy converter which utilizes solid fuel biomass energy units. I used to say I burned wood in my wood stove, but then I got green and learned the correct terminology.
polistra on September 28 at 11:59 a.m.
80 million dollars would buy 3 mini-nuclear plants, which would then provide all the energy needed for roughly 75,000 people for 5 years.
That would be a much better ‘research’ project than trying to learn how to burn wood. We already know how to burn wood. We learned about 20,000 years ago.
WHS on September 28 at 12:11 p.m.
dataxman on September 28 at 11:16 a.m.
WHS - unless the laws of physics have suddenly changed, the energy needed to make bio-diesel isn’t going to change due to the passage of time.
I have to tell you dataxman, that is very ignorant statement, but not unexpected. I mean if people were to take you seriously, then why are we not still using whale blubber? Isn’t that saying the same thing… I mean it worked right. Render it down to oil, it burns… So why bother eh’. The energy needed to get dam black stuff rendered down to a usable product was just what?
Dip diddy doo da
dataxman, here is a quote maybe your neandrathal brain can understand.
“The NFL today has bigger, stronger, bodies than ever, moving faster than ever, hitting a stationary object harder than ever before - so the physics of the hit have changed.”
Leigh Steinberg
Now go ahead… Flag away. But I think stupid needs to be called out every now and then.
WHS
Oh’ and redcedar, that was funny! And unfortunately, you are right in a lot of respects.
Squid on September 28 at 1:09 p.m.
We already have tons of options for energy, but they are all unaffordable, inefficient, or don’t meet pollution standards in the City of Spokane. The City won’t allow you to have a mini wind turbine. The City won’t allow you to have a wood fired boiler. The City won’t allow you to burn wood, when it’s cold. They won’t even allow you to drill a water well. It’s not possible to sustain yourself in the City. The County is also very restrictive.
I have to wonder why they won’t give money to small business. It would be a much better way to stimulate the economy. Here is a good friend of mine’s Spokane based, sustainable energy business: http://www.trustinwind.com/ . He has not received any Government money. Check out all of his innovations and patents that have revolutionized this industry. Small businesses don’t get the secret cash, even when they have solutions to big problems….. And of course, he is a Republican.
Redcedar, you funny guy!
gmorton on September 28 at 1:22 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“Since this data is now 6yrs old, don’t you think it would be prudent for America to invest in a little more research.”
By “America,” do you mean the gummint?
Then the answer is “no.” If there is a profit to be made biofuels then private investors will be more than happy to pursue it. If it must be subsidized with funds forcibly collected from taxpayers, then you know is it not market-clearing. I.e., it is a boondoggle designed to enrich bureaucrats and their crony capitalist accomplices.
This sort of nonsense is the reason the US has a $15 trillion national debt.
gmorton on September 28 at 1:26 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“I mean if people were to take you seriously, then why are we not still using whale blubber?”
Because it was not cost-effective in comparision with petroleum. And it didn’t require gummint subsidies to elucidate that fact.
jerrylax on September 28 at 1:28 p.m.
well..looks like patty murray is still bringing in the PORK… but, what the hey it’s ONLY $80,000,000.00 chicken feed when they are bringing in a $billion to reelect Mr. Pork (obama) himself!
tobiasg on September 28 at 2:01 p.m.
Why don’t we just give that money to the oil companies? Oh wait, that would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we already give them.
WHS on September 28 at 2:07 p.m.
Uh’ couple things gmorton.
First, yes when I say America, I mean the government in this instance. And sorry to tell you bub, but government research, funding and backing has been occuring since the Constitution was written. This is how America has been operating since it’s inception. And I might add, worldwide. The government pays for the discovery, business just exploits it, then pays a tax for it.
Remember all those railroads built in the 1800’s we discussed previously? Just whom do you think A) Paid for the discovery of the over-land passages? B) Provided all the land grants. It was certainly not big business.
Seriously gang, the US Federal Government has been subsidizing basic research and discovery since this country was founded. Business has just taken the discoveries and found a way to profit from them. But, at one time, these businesses paid a tax for use of this discovery, which was a way for them to pay back the people of America. Now, well thanks to the Republicans and now the tea party conservatives, they don’t even want to pay that.
Seriously gmorton, you need to educate yourself, because you really are out of touch with reality.
WHS
RedCedar on September 28 at 2:21 p.m.
Ah, but apparently what we need the government to help us learn how to do, rather than collecting and burning dead trees found in the forest like the cave men did, is plant large monocultures of special genetically engineered biofuel plants, after eradicating every other living thing on that land, tend, water,fertilize, harvest, transport, and process those crops using mainly fossil fuel products, so as to produce a “green” biodiesel or gasahol type product that can then be given a government subsidy in order to make it competitive with petroleum that hasn’t been through the long and complex process of being converted to biofuel via the use of much land and many machines.
At best, this kind of thing is window-dressing and an opportunity for a politician to create a photo-op handing a big fake check to some “green business” that has excellent political connections and nothing remotely resembling a bankable business plan. At worst, it’s “green” government-subsidized environmental destruction, such as the ADM alcohol subsidy. Thankfully they’re only talking millions here, and not billions, so in today’s devalued dollars we can probably afford it.
johnclarke on September 28 at 3:11 p.m.
1) Burning food is stupid, so Ethanol is stupid and expensive and my boat hates it. Therefore, I hate it.
2) WHS - I know, right ?
Squid on September 28 at 3:17 p.m.
JC, my GF burns food all the time. I agree. It’s kinda stupid, and a waste of good food.
Burning wood is good though, since it’s almost free heat and efficient, if you have access to timber, and a truck to haul it.
johnclarke on September 28 at 3:27 p.m.
No argument here. Just burn it outside these days….makes the house smell and it’s hard to regulate the heat.
That ethanol crap is a really bad idea. It starts to break up in only like a month.
WHS on September 28 at 3:35 p.m.
gmorton on September 28 at 1:26 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“I mean if people were to take you seriously, then why are we not still using whale blubber?”
Because it was not cost-effective in comparision with petroleum. And it didn’t require gummint subsidies to elucidate that fact.
So, looks like we need another class eh’ gmorton. Do you know why whale blubber went away? You were partially right, in that a more cost effective, better product became available… It is called kerosene. Do you know who discovered kerosene? Look it up gmorton, do a little research and you will find it was discovered by a government employee… Yup, he was geologist (and a physician as well) who was contracted by a government.
I will leave the rest up to you, but if you would actually spend a little time educating yourself, you might be able to play with the big boys.
WHS
And yeah johnclarke, right.
johnclarke on September 28 at 4:21 p.m.
Although this is small potatoes, and I don’t understand the process enough to know if it’s good technology - there is one major issue with the “cut gubmint spending” chorus from the right; they are asking for a Japan style lost decade. The downturn actually started well in advance of the crash, like in 2007- and the Bush administration’s decision to let Lehman go down was epic in it’s stupidity.After all the Bush handouts, the Obama stimulus was the right thing to do, and it stabilized the world economy. However, we are literally at the edge of the cliff. If the problem creators (the Republicans) get their way, and government stops spending we will double dip for sure. This is agreed upon by literally anyone that is educated on the topic. The Japanese keep trying to tell us, but we are just caught up in partisan politics. Something has to keep borrowing and spending until the economy can recover, and the only thing left is the US Government. It’s math.
dataxman on September 28 at 4:25 p.m.
WHS - You are all over the place with your responses. Try and focus and maybe you won’t lower the IQ on this board every time you post.
My point was valid - unless someone in the last six years has invented a revolutionary way to grow corn with less energy inputs (they haven’t), harvest it with less energy inputs (they haven’t) and distill it into ethanol with less energy inputs (they haven’t) then the six year old study stating ethanol is a negative energy source is still valid. Not sure why that would surprise anyone as you can find studies going back decades that come up with the same conclusion. That is why the government must first subsidize the production then mandate the use.
Dazzeetrader11 on September 28 at 4:31 p.m.
WHS sais..”First, yes when I say America, I mean the government in this instance. And sorry to tell you bub, but government research, funding and backing has been occuring since the Constitution was written.”
Uh…no. You have the first stages of liberal brain disease. America is NOT the government unless you’re delusional. Get better soon:)
gmorton on September 28 at 6:40 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“And sorry to tell you bub, but government research, funding and backing has been occuring since the Constitution was written. This is how America has been operating since it’s inception.”
Er, no. It has been doing no such thing. The government had no role to speak of in the invention of any of the transformative technologies of the 19th and early 20th centuries, not the steam engine, not the electric generator or motor, not photographic film or motion pictures, not the internal combustion engine or the automobile, not medical breakthroughs such as the smallpox, Salk, or Sabin vaccines, not the airplane, not the telephone, not radio or television, not atomic power, not the transistor or the integrated circuit. Nor did it have any role in their subsequent development, except for those with obvious military potential, such as the airplane and atomic power.
Nor does it have any constitutional authority to engage in such activities.
You are fabricating a false history of Big Brother’s past glories to justify his present boondoggles.
“Remember all those railroads built in the 1800’s we discussed previously? Just whom do you think A) Paid for the discovery of the over-land passages? B) Provided all the land grants. It was certainly not big business.”
Oh, cease with the land grants. The government desired railroads across the West for military reasons, though at the time there was no commercial need for them. So it offered land grants to get them built, just as it granted lands to almost everyone else who asked. Railroads were well developed in the Eastern half of the country, where they made economic sense, with no land grants or any other gummint involvement. It had no role whatsoever in the development of railroad technologies.
“Seriously gang, the US Federal Government has been subsidizing basic research and discovery since this country was founded.”
Please cite some examples. Not geographical exploration and surveying, please.
gmorton on September 28 at 7:25 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“Do you know who discovered kerosene? Look it up gmorton, do a little research and you will find it was discovered by a government employee…”
Er, no. I assume you’re referring to Abraham Gesner. Gesner did not “discover” kerosene; it had been known since the 9th century. He discovered a method of extracting it from coal. He did that on his own time, received a patent, and launched his own company to produce it. The Canadian government had nothing to do with it.
“After his failure to persuade the people of St. John to found or nourish a museum, he returned to the Annapolis Valley and purchased the family farm from his father. Here he practised medicine and experimented with electromagnetism and the distillation of coal. The last of these studies was important. The
Scotsman, James Young (1811-1883), had already in 1848 established the possibility of extracting paraffin from mineral oil and peat, which led to a widescale manufacture of both liquid
and solid paraffins. Whether Gesner was spurred by this, one cannot say, but in that same year he had sold the farm back to his father and left for Sackville and Halifax. In 1852 his experiments on the extraction of a product similar to paraffin were sufficiently advanced for him to patent kerosene.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1878918/pdf/canmedaj01493-0066.pdf
Nice try though.
johnclarke on September 28 at 7:33 p.m.
gmorton, you are certainly more articulate than Daisy, but equally clueless. Most of the great advances in technology owe their origins to either government or straight up military funding. You can try and sound smart with cherry picking certain advances that may not have had direct government funding, but as usual you just sound like a self righteous blowhard. If you and your fellow right wing flat earthers would stop it with the hyperbole, the big folk can get down to fixing your screw ups.
gmorton on September 28 at 7:46 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“Most of the great advances in technology owe their origins to either government or straight up military funding.”
I just listed, above, the “great advances in technology” of the 19th and early 20th centuries. None of them had any initial government funding; though those with military potential, such as aircraft and atomic power, received development funding later.
You appear to be living in the same realm of myth as WHS.
“You can try and sound smart with cherry picking certain advances that may not have had direct government funding … ”
LOL. “Cherry picking,” eh? The technologies I listed pretty well exhaust the category of “great advances in technology” over the last 200 years or so. But please feel free to cite any you think I’ve ignored, and document the government’s role in them.
That will require some evidence, John. *Ad hominems* and baseless claims won’t cut it.
meadman on September 28 at 8:14 p.m.
gmorton since you don’t think any government involvement in basic R&D is needed or wise then I guess you would also be totally AGAINST all the $$$ that is given to the oil companies and pharmaceutical companies in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to do research and exploration??
you can’t have it both ways…..
johnclarke on September 28 at 8:47 p.m.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/12/american_innovation.shtml
Here you go, gmorton. I hope you are right about something some day soon, because it must be a bummer to be wrong, all the time. Don’t let this stop you though, you are a very amusing addition, much like Daisy - but most of the time I can understand you.
johnclarke on September 28 at 8:49 p.m.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Case%20Studies%20in%20American%20Innovation%20report.pdf
Direct link….
gmorton on September 28 at 8:59 p.m.
meadman wrote,
“gmorton since you don’t think any government involvement in basic R&D is needed or wise then I guess you would also be totally AGAINST all the $$$ that is given to the oil companies and pharmaceutical companies in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to do research and exploration??”
Yes, I am against it. Subsidies to oil companies, however, are negligible as a fraction of total sales.
johnclarke on September 28 at 9:16 p.m.
“Yes, I am against it. Subsidies to oil companies, however, are negligible as a fraction of total sales.”
Are you incapable of admitting you are wrong? Free money to corporations, is still free money. How is any taxpayer welfare for any company anything but FREE MONEY?
gmorton on September 28 at 9:25 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“Direct link….”
LOL. You’d better read between the lines there, John. Buying others’ inventions and the fact that some engineers attended the Naval Academy do not amount to a significant contribution to the development of technologies.
As I said, there was no government involvement to speak of in the technologies I listed above, which were the transformative technologies of the last 200 years. There were no government grants, no subsidies, no tax breaks involved in the development of any of them. Government land grants facilitated the *extension* of the US rail system (to portions of the country where there was no demand for it) but not to the development of the necessary technologies.
Your link reflects the aims of its organizers, John, namely, “Breakthrough Institute was founded in 2003 to modernize liberal-progressive-green politics.”
http://thebreakthrough.org/about.shtml
I.e., it is a lefty advocacy outfit.
gmorton on September 28 at 9:27 p.m.
jgnclarke wrote,
How is any taxpayer welfare for any company anything but FREE MONEY?”
It isn’t. I was not defending anyone’s subsidies, John.
johnclarke on September 28 at 9:48 p.m.
You are kind of annoying gmorton, like an ex-wife. No amount of logic or proof will stop you from talking, gmorton. Er.
The internet, which someone needs to deny to people like you came from …um…where?
WHS on September 29 at 7:00 a.m.
johnclarke, nice link! But, no matter what, the naysayers will argue it out. They just can’t admit when they are wrong or that their logic is skewed.
dataxman, are you an agronomist? Are you even involved in the ag industry? I will tell you, that I am involved in the agricultural industry and can say with utmost certainty that in the last 6yrs there have been some big strides in wheat crop production. This last seasons wheat crops yields were some of the best in history. In 2006 the national avg was 38.6 bushels, in 2011 45.2 bushels. And I will add that most of the research is being done with grants supplied by the government.
Now, let me clue you in on something else.
“Iowa State University project shows yields of organic corn and soybeans equal or exceed conventional production while producing twice the revenue”
This is from a January 2010 report.
Now, let me clue you in on a couple of other “facts”. China is quickly becoming a world leader in the ag industry.
“One good example is the use of scientific and technological advances in China’s Jilin Province in the northeast, where more than 264 improved crop breeds were developed, 80 of which have been used successfully in production”
Now, please please continue to spout the radical right teabagger mantras… And while you are doing that, the world will be passing us by. You all complain bitterly about China, but it is you and the republican agenda that are strangling America.
WHS
WHS on September 29 at 11:57 a.m.
and gmorton, I am about done trying to reason with you. Even in the face of overwhelming facts and truth, you still try to argue otherwise. Next you will be telling us how great the 50’s were…
WHS
gmorton on September 29 at 11:59 a.m.
WHS wrote,
“They just can’t admit when they are wrong or that their logic is skewed.”
There is a difference between claiming someone is wrong and showing it. I assume that is why you failed to offer the examples I asked for.
WHS on September 29 at 1:10 p.m.
gee gmorton, still not sure what “examples” you are refering to? However, once again I will prove you wrong.
As posted by gmorton:
Er, no. I assume you’re referring to Abraham Gesner. Gesner did not “discover” kerosene; it had been known since the 9th century. He discovered a method of extracting it from coal. He did that on his own time, received a patent, and launched his own company to produce it. The Canadian government had nothing to do with it.
Lets see what the truth is;
“In 1838, he was appointed Provincial Geologist for New Brunswick, charged with the mission to undertake a similar geological survey. In the course of this survey, in 1839 Gesner discovered the bituminous asphalt substance albertite, which he named after Albert County, New Brunswick where it was found.
Gesner’s research in minerals resulted in his 1846 development of a process to refine a liquid fuel from coal. His new discovery, which he named kerosene, burned cleaner and was less expensive than competing products, such as whale oil.”
“In 1846, Canadian geologist Abraham Gesner gave a public demonstration in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island of a new process he had discovered. He heated coal in a retort and distilled from it a clear, thin fluid which he showed made an excellent lamp fuel. He coined the name “Kerosene” for his fuel, a contraction of keroselaion, meaning wax-oil. The cost of extracting kerosene from coal was high. Fortunately, Gesner recalled from his extensive knowledge of New Brunswick’s geology a naturally occurring asphaltum called albertite.”
So, I showed it for you… Are you now willing to admit that in this instance you are wrong?
The reality is, there are very few inventors that did not have some sort of assistance, start, funding, backing or support of the government. Right now I can only think of one in Eli Whitney who invented the cotton gin… And there are probably others. However, my point being, that the majority of discoveries and inventions and resulting exploitation have had government involvement in one form or another.
So, bottom line, no matter how much you try to prove otherwise, government has and is critical to the discovery and advancement of technology.
Thanks for playing
WHS
WHS on September 29 at 3:58 p.m.
OK, gmorton one more thing… Heres the answer to what I believe you were refering to.
“Alexander Hamilton, one of the nation’s Founding Fathers and its first secretary of the treasury, advocated an economic development strategy in which the federal government would nurture infant industries by providing overt subsidies and imposing protective tariffs on imports. He also urged the federal government to create a national bank and to assume the public debts that the colonies had incurred during the Revolutionary War.”
For more reading:
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/oecon/chap3.htm
Thanks for playing
WHS
gmorton on September 29 at 10:12 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“So, I showed it for you… Are you now willing to admit that in this instance you are wrong?”
Sorry, WHS, but what you “showed” does not contradict what I said, or confirm your claim, which was as follows:
“Do you know who discovered kerosene? Look it up gmorton, do a little research and you will find it was discovered by a government employee…”
Gesner did not “discover kerosene.” It was discovered centuries ago. What Gesner discovered was a method of extracting it from coal. Nor does the material you quoted state otherwise. It states that Gesner discovered albertite. Albertite is not kerosene.
Moreover, when Gesner demonstrated his method of extracting kerosene from coal he was not working for the provincial government and his work was not financed by the government. So your claim that kerosene was “discovered by a government employee” is false. By that time he was working for himself; he was an ex-government employee. Gesner, not the provincial government of New Brunswick, was awarded the patent for his process.
If you wish to refute a claim, you have to cite evidence that actually and specifically addresses that claim. Were you trying for a smokescreen there by posting material that does not?
gmorton on September 29 at 10:17 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“Alexander Hamilton, one of the nation’s Founding Fathers and its first secretary of the treasury, advocated an economic development strategy in which the federal government would nurture infant industries by providing overt subsidies and imposing protective tariffs on imports.”
Oh, yes. Hamilton was a warmed-over mercantilist. The subsidies he advocated in his “Report on Manufactures” were never adopted by Congress, however.
His tariff proposals were, but they were specifically authorized in the Constitution. Subsidies to businesses are not.
mdriftmeyer on September 29 at 11:43 p.m.
FYI: WSU has already completed their General Biomass to Fuel solution and certification.
They have already given a road map [from 4 months ago] of no more than 2 months to having their solution ready for prime time.
http://wsutoday.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=26200&TypeID=1
Research Arm:
http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/cbb/
With the infusion of over 40 times the financing it’s quite clear they are in the final stage.
mdriftmeyer on September 29 at 11:46 p.m.
Hamilton was for a big, central government and no back in 1789 they sure didn’t have a concept of subsidizing R&D. The Industrial Revolution was yet to happen.
Please stop citing the Founding Fathers when it comes to the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries and the Sciences.
They would be thrilled to invest heavily into the US and Infrastructure. They’d be enamored with traveling through space and most of all they would be appalled at the lunacy of Religion meddling in Government affairs.
mdriftmeyer on September 29 at 11:49 p.m.
Anyone who is not an actual Mechanical, Chemical, Materials Engineer, Chemist or an Applied Physicist would do themselves a service and stop talking.
Besides myself, how many Mechanical Engineers have commented on the Heat Transfer/Thermodynamics breakthroughs with Biomass going on in this research?
None? That’s what I thought.
Go get a degree in Engineering and then talk.
This is a long overdue solution that has seen the collaboration of over a dozen disciplines to produce high yields of already accounted Carbon mass straight into usable Fuel for Airlines, Rails, Autos, Home Heating and more.
greenlibertarian on September 30 at 12:10 a.m.
“they (the Founding Fathers) would be appalled at the lunacy of Religion meddling in Government affairs.”
-mdriftmeyer
On that point, gmorton would certainly agree.
WHS on September 30 at 12:12 p.m.
gmorton, you say potatoe I say potato… And you are still incorrect, or I will rephrase, you are only partially correct. If you would have read just a few sentences further you would understand this. “Kerosene” was discovered by Gesner - period and his extraction process was discovered while he was in government employ. However, I am no longer going debate this. Anybody with any sense knows that the government had a hand in things during the industrial revolution. Your statements were absolute that the government did not. I have proven those statements to be incorrect.
That is the difference between the radical right teabaggers and the rest of country, you choose to do deal in absolutes, which does not allow any room for debate or negotiation and which is what will ultimately lead to your demise.
WHS