Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Obama Announces for President, Boosts Broadband

Posted by kdawson on Sun Feb 11, 2007 03:40 AM
from the ethanol-and-fat-pipes-for-all dept.
Arlen writes "As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today. He mentioned several things that will interest readers of Slashdot. The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol — a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers. He also talked about using science and technology to help those with chronic diseases, which is likely to have been an allusion to his staunch support for stem cell research. Perhaps most of interest to readers here is the following statement halfway through Obama's speech: 'Let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America. We can do that.' Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd. You can watch a video of the entire speech at Obama's website."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates 478 comments
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama recently submitted a letter to the DNC asking for the Presidential debates to be licensed under the Creative Commons. This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish. "I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates. Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."
[+] McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues 877 comments
eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • If Obama [senate.gov] and Biden [senate.gov] have a joint ticket, do you think they will call it obama/biden?

    If they do, will they be "cashing in" on the popular the "dyslexic terrorist" vote?

    (If there's going to be a political flamewar, it may as well be my political flamewar).
  • by Petey_Alchemist (711672) on Sunday February 11 2007, @03:46AM (#17970096) Homepage
    It's also worth noting that, in addition to things like 1 million strong for Barack [facebook.com], his team has set up it's own social networking site [barackobama.com] where Obama supporters can share photos, messages, groups, fundraising, and events.

    Dean ushered in Internet fundraising in 2004. Could Obama harness social networking?
  • Freeing America from oil via ethanol.

    Read this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219742&cid=178 41462 [slashdot.org]

    One ton of dry biomass = 2 barrels of oil

    The USA burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day. As I incorrectly pointed out in the prior post - this is 10 million tonnes of dry biomass per day (I had a brain fart which no one picked up on and wrote 40 tonnes).

    It was nicely pointed out and correctly I might add that if we were to produce the amount of ethanol required to offset the oil being burned, then we would need more than the world's production of grain.

    I did a google search on "world grain production" and was impressed with the increases since the 1960's.

    Since I grew up on a grain farm I have a gut feel for this. The increased production came from dwarf grains (more grain, less stalk), irrigation and fertilizer. At this point much of the north amercian farmland has been badly raped of its nutrients. As I write this a major part of the North American fertilizer industry is shut down because of a shortage of Methane. They use methane to create anhydrous ammonia.

    Check here:

    http://www.agrium.com/products_services/ingredient s_for_growth/nitrogen/anhydrous_ammonia.jsp [agrium.com]

    The thing is the irrigation is not sustainable.

    The dwarf grains and genetic manipulation lead to mono culture which is questionable sustainable.

    The use of methane to create nitrogen fertilizers is past peak by over 5 years in North America. Its a big problem.

    The short of it is that there is no way on earth we can double our grain production. We can however produce Ethanol from other than grain.

    Cellulose to ethanol is a possibility with fungii like Trichoderma reeshii. But plants also contain pentosans and lignins. T. reeshii likes cellulose.

    Personally I think a fungus with more potential is in the Pleurotis genus.

    But that is just my guess.

    The short of it is that we have a big problem - do we want to eat (grain) or do we want to drive cars.

    I hope the cars lose.

    As I pointed out before.... the USA would have to convert more than the whole world's supply of grain into ethanol to keep its fleet of car toys on the road.
      • by wellingj (1030460) on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:55AM (#17970562)
        How many people really need to drive 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year? I live in montana (read: it's cold and there is very very poor public transportation) and I still walk/ride bike every where. Why can't more people do this? The problem with the us is that we are to car centric. When the automobile stops being the american icon is when we will be free of oil. Once that and all it's ramifications settles into your brain, it's quite eye opening what a oil free america would look like.
    • by StarKruzr (74642) on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:43AM (#17970482) Journal
      Obama wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So do the rest of us. i.e., so do I, and I'm a member of the NRA.

      There is nothing wrong (i.e., against the 2nd Amendment) with enforcing gun control laws. It's gun control, not gun banning. I am not a felon (and neither are you, I assume?) so I have nothing to fear from them.

      As for redistributive economics, that's another way of saying "letting government do things that it's good at."
    • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Sunday February 11 2007, @05:19AM (#17970692)
      Which is more important? Buying military grade weapons at walmart on a whim, or lowering health care costs and taking care of people's health, education and repaying the insane debt we're in thanks to the republicans?

      When the results of global warming release natures fury, you can shoot at the ocean as it trespasses on your property in Texas. :)

      I'm being a little silly but there are more important things than gun control. I hope no one basis their vote on that single issue. There is so much more at stake in our daily lives. If you live for guns and guns alone you have a problem. I beleive in the right to self defend yourself, own a gun etc... but there really are other important issues and we only get two fucking choices unfortunately. Hopefully no one actually does vote based on a single issue... but this country is certainly full of people that do.

      • by Xonstantine (947614) on Sunday February 11 2007, @03:47AM (#17970114)
        besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.

        You mean like in Washington D.C.? [disastercenter.com]

        Or maybe you mean Chicago [cityrating.com]

        Both cities have what is considered to be fairly draconian gun control laws by US standards. Both have violent crime rates well in excess of the national average.
      • by king-manic (409855) on Sunday February 11 2007, @05:02AM (#17970612)
        I am a Canadian liveral. I disagree. Our gun control has had no effect on gun crime and it cost 2 bil a year. It's poverty that spurs urban violence. Canada has lower rates due to social programs. Europe as well. Guns are a complete red herring.
          • by bky1701 (979071) on Sunday February 11 2007, @05:20AM (#17970706) Homepage
            Clippy: It looks like you are ready to run for president of the United States. There are just a feel more things that you have to do before this can be done:

            * Promise things you will never deliver,
            * Side with devil A or devil B,
            * Take over a massive company or many companies.

            And no, this post is not offtopic, you insensitive clod(s)!
      • by cduffy (652) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:54AM (#17970560)
        I think his issue positions are pretty darned acceptable. He's able to talk nicely to the Right while maintaining a largely traditional Democratic set of positions, without going completely far-Left overboard (see Hillary). Folks who claim Obama has no record are also off-base -- there's quite a bit of legislation he's sponsored, it's generally pretty commendable stuff (as opposed to the traditional solution-in-search-of-a-problem or show-we're-doing-something BS which comes out of Congress these days).

        Anyhow, he's running for President, not dictator. Consensus-building is much more important than having the right positions on the issues -- after all, it's Congress that's doing the lawmaking. What we need right now is a President who isn't going to go power-mad overboard again and who can foster a less poisonous political environment. I think Obama is the person to do precisely that.
        • by king-manic (409855) on Sunday February 11 2007, @05:14AM (#17970670)
          This is pretty much what Bill Clinton did. He didn't run on anything extreamly radicle but hope. It was the enternal optimist that painted every picture as better with him. The same stock numbers as we have today, the same or worse unemployment numbers as today, Most of the same if not worse economic indecators as we have today, But the picture was painted so much brighter when he was president. (note that By worse only represents that levels have grown today as a natural prograsion of events, Not something specificly wrong in eiother adminstration)

          Did you miss the last 4 years. I am a canadian and we noticed in the last 4 years you've changed a lot. You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
    • Re:Midwest (Score:5, Funny)

      by anagama (611277) <<thepotter> <at> <yahoo.com>> on Sunday February 11 2007, @03:55AM (#17970164) Homepage

      Honestly, I don't even see a negative side to ethanol (other than it's still a fossil fuel).
      How much does a bottle of 120,000,000 year old scotch go for these days?
    • Re:Midwest (Score:5, Informative)

      by tap (18562) on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:07AM (#17970272) Homepage
      The negative side of ethanol is that the net positive side is very small to non-existant. It takes a lot of nearly as much oil to produce the ethanol from corn as the ethanol saves. The best figured I've seen is it takes 1 barrel of oil to produce the ethanol equivalent of 1.2 barrels of oil. And then you have to take into account the other side effects of corn production, the pesticides, the fertilizer run-off, the phosphate use, etc. Ethanol from corn is more of a government gift to to corn farmers than it is an effective means of reducing dependence on foreign oil or CO2 emissions. It would be far more cost effective to spend the money in a way that reduces energy use, like replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact-flourescent or funding ways of making cities less car dependent.
    • Re:Midwest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Arbusto (300950) <theprimechuck@g m a il.com> on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:54AM (#17970550) Journal
      I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.

      Me too, I live in Ames, Iowa. And judging by your mention of Obama visiting, you at least live near if not here. Iowa is full of corn, and now full of ethanol production. Scary thing is, we've all be sold on ethanol, but it really isn't a good viable solution in its current form. Let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm all for ethanol as part of our Energy Portfolio. 10% ethanol blends are much better than the former required additives and increases the market for corn, while slightly.

      We're tying our food supply to our energy supply, which is very dynamic, inefficient from corn, (When compared to other food products), subject to natural disasters and raises the cost of food and food products in ways that most people don't realize. Right now the big push in the US is ethanol from corn, if we converted all of our crop to ethanol and converted all of our cars to ethanol, we wouldn't come close to the actual demand. However, as we push more demand into the market the cost of corn is going to sky rocket. In the US corn syrup is used for anything sweet that is mass produced. The cost of corn syrup increases and the over all cost of foods increase. The cost of feeding chickens, pigs and cows up, which means the cost of meat and eggs go up. The cost of dairy goes up. All because we've change our food source from a food to an energy because it is being sold as the cure for oil.

      At Iowa gas stations, higher ethanol blends receive subsidies and are usually cheaper than their non ethanol counter parts. Which is cool, if you ignore the subsidies cost at the state and federal level. Subsidies that place ethanol in a different tax category as gasoline and isn't subject to the same taxes as regular gasoline. There are many more negative sides and aren't just cost related.

      The physics of the matter is ethanol is simply doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline and will actually require more to be burned, when compared to the same volume of gasoline.

      Growing plants is hard work and is very seasonal in most of the US (like Iowa) adding to large (but seasonal) price fluctuation. Increasing the demand of ethanol also increases the amount of land needs to grow plants, increases the density required, fertilizer required and is considered by some (ironically, the same people who "care" about the environment) to be an environmental disaster in the making.

      Mr. Obama is taking a rather popular (and uninformed) stand, and offering up a solution that has many problems that he doesn't know about, most americans don't know about and will probably never addressed either in a campaign or in the future, but saying "I'm all about this ethanol stuff" in Iowa is required, just ask John McCaine.
      • Re:Midwest (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:00AM (#17970200)
        I'm putting my money on producing oil from algae. The idea of a biofuel which doesn't require arable land to grow and can be used in common diesel engines seems like the perfect replacement for fossil fuels to me. It would be a much easier transition to make than the transition to other alternative fuels.
      • by StarKruzr (74642) on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:59AM (#17970586) Journal
        The inefficiency is only true for gas engines converted to run on booze. When you design an engine that cannot run on gasoline but runs well on alcohol, you design it to use much, MUCH higher compression ratios that would be impossible to use in a gas engine, and efficiency actually surpasses that of gasoline.
    • ^ FROM CORN (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) * on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:01AM (#17970214)

      Like you said, the problem is the source of the fuel, not the chemical itself. Unfortunately, your post title would lead one to believe the opposite -- you ought to be more careful about that.

    • Re:you know what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aussie_a (778472) on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:31AM (#17970418) Journal
      Wow, I must have missed the memo. How do black people speak? Cause I thought they were human beings and spoke just like anyone else with all the variations you can find in any group of people.
    • Re:Industrial Hemp (Score:5, Informative)

      by mrchaotica (681592) * on Sunday February 11 2007, @04:37AM (#17970454)

      Yes...

      ...but the devil weed also makes the dirty mexicans and niggers rape white women!!11!one!

      Yep, that's what all those racists claimed back in the day, which is why marijuana is illegal*, and why any discussion of "industrial hemp" is dead-on-arrival. Sorry, no miracle energy source for us!

      *Technically, the federal government didn't outlaw the substance (as that would be unconstitutional); they just made it so that a permit was required to grow it (citing the Interstate Commerce Clause) and then refused to issue any permits. Fucking NAZIs, circumventing the Constitution!)