Category Archives: masters of the universe

Japan’s Disaster – A first hand account

Posted on by
Reply

There are many things you could call what happened to Japan. A nuclear, earthquake, or tsunami followed by the word disaster. But to me it is a failure of planning disaster. I can imagine a 20 foot wall 10 miles inland with all the areas population living behind it. I can imagine all the land in between there and the ocean as green space. I can imagine the ports and the fishing boats and the sea farms being operated by the inhabitants who must commute 10 miles one way everyday. I can not image what this guy saw. Pretty good writer also. See:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55156

EXCLUSIVE
 Report from Fukushima
By Suvendrini Kakuchi

FUKUSHIMA, Japan, Apr 7, 2011 (IPS) – My decision to visit Fukushima – the area worst hit by the massive quake, tsunami and nuclear power accident on Mar. 11 – was taken one afternoon last week after a long meeting with scientists.

The invitation to accompany the scientists on a private fact-finding mission to Fukushima was irresistible. The scientists and engineers who gathered that day, had, for decades, harboured misgivings over reactor safety design and policies and were active in the ongoing debate over the future of nuclear energy in Japan.

“There is a dire need for a real time radiation monitoring network to be set up in areas affected by the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant,” Atsuto Suzuki, head of the high-energy accelerator research organisation at Tsukuba University, explained. “This is where our expertise can begin to play a role.”

We started our journey at 6am, armed with bottles of mineral water, clothing that could be discarded before our return to Tokyo, and special facemasks to protect us from radiation when we approached the 20-kilometre exclusive zone around the damaged reactors.

Around our necks dangled radioactive dosimeters, resembling large thermometers. The machines would show accumulated microsieverts of radiation contamination on our bodies and instructions were given that we carry them all the time to record the rise in the figures while noting the exact locations.

“Our own documentation of radioactive material is key to understanding the Fukushima accident,” explained Yoichi Tao, a physicist specialising in risk management design, who is now retired. He is also a graduate from Tokyo University.

But Tao is not part of the cosy group of experts who have guided Japan’s ambitious post-war nuclear power industry. Instead, having experienced the atomic bombing of Hiroshima when he was just six years old, the scientist, contends the bitter truth that Japan had chosen to ignore till today, was that fool-proof safety in nuclear power is simply a “myth”.

“It is time,” he explained, “to embark on a clearer definition of the complex concept of safety. This calls for research from diverse perspectives – the views of residents, independent opinions, as well as taking in an assessment on the impact of the accident on other countries.”

The three-hour drive to Fukushima was hauntingly poignant. With most of the motorways now open for traffic, we passed the breathtaking scenery that marks Japan’s northern region – mountains dotted with pristine pine forests on one side of the road and the pale blue, now serene, ocean glistening on the other. Sharp gusts of chilly air wrapped our car on a near empty road, a sign of the lost appeal of Fukushima – which had been up till now a tourist destination boasting therapeutic hot springs and fresh seafood.

:}

More next week.

:}

President Obama Sets New Energy Policy – Well sorta

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama announced his new Energy Policy for the second half of his first term. This is a lot to get done in 2 years. We shall see how it goes. With gasoline prices hovering around or above  4  $$$ a gallon, maybe he will get some movement on the fleet transportation issues.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf

Introduction: Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future
“We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again. The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out. Not anymore. Not when the cost to our economy, our country, and our planet is so high. Not when your generation needs us to get this right. It is time to do what we can to secure our energy future.”

President Obama, March 30, 2011
Rising prices at the pump affect everybody – workers and farmers; truck drivers and restaurant owners. Businesses see it impact their bottom line. Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder. Demand for oil in countries like China and India is only growing, and the price of oil will continue to rise with it. That’s why we need to make ourselves more secure and control our energy future by harnessing all of the resources that we have available and embracing a diverse energy portfolio.
Every president since Richard Nixon has called for America’s independence from oil, but Washington gridlock has prevented action again and again. If we want to create a more secure energy future, and protect consumers at the pump, that has to change. When President Obama took office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. Today, he pledged that by a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third, and put forward a plan to secure America’s energy future by producing more oil at home and reducing our dependence on oil by leveraging cleaner, alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
We’ve already made progress toward this goal – last year, America produced more oil than we had in the last seven years. We’re taking steps to encourage more offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it’s safe and responsible. And, because we know we can’t just drill our way out of our energy challenge, we’re reducing our dependence on oil by increasing our production of natural gas and biofuels, and increasing our fuel efficiency. Last year, we announced ground-breaking fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that will save consumers thousands of dollars and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil.
And beyond our efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, we must focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity, including renewables like wind and solar, as well as clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear power – keeping America on the cutting edge of clean energy technology so that we can build a 21st century clean energy economy and win the future.
To help us reach these goals, the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future outlines a three-part strategy:

Develop and Secure America’s Energy Supplies: We need to deploy American assets, innovation, and technology so that we can safely and responsibly develop more energy here at home and be a leader in the global energy economy.
Provide Consumers With Choices to Reduce Costs and Save Energy: Volatile gasoline prices reinforce the need for innovation that will make it easier and more affordable for consumers to buy more advanced and fuel-efficient vehicles, use alternative means of transportation, weatherize their homes and workplaces, and in doing so, save money and protect the environment. These measures help families’ pocketbooks, reduce our dependence on finite energy sources and help create jobs here in the United States.
Innovate our Way to a Clean Energy Future: Leading the world in clean energy is critical to strengthening the American economy and winning the future. We can get there by creating markets for innovative clean technologies that are ready to deploy, and by funding cutting-edge research to produce the next generation of technologies. And as new, better, and more efficient technologies hit the market, the Federal government needs to put words into action and lead by example.
What follows is a roadmap that aims to distill some of the challenges at hand, and to outline strategies for surmounting those challenges that build on the strong record of what the Obama Administration has already accomplished and set in motion.

:}

For more read the whole thing. For a critique read this article at The Oil Drum

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7749#more

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

I Was Looking For A Joke – What I got was this

Posted on by
Reply

I typed in “best way to avert a nuclear disaster” thinking that I might get a joke or something other then Japan’s smoking nukes. I was wrong but this guy is pretty insightful.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26916.html

Nuclear Power Industry Praying Japan Will Avert a Nuclear Disaster

Stock-Markets / Nuclear Power Mar 14, 2011 – 10:59 AM

By: Martin_D_Weiss

Explosions and meltdowns at nuclear reactors in Japan this past weekend will forever change the world of energy.

Authorities have already scheduled widespread power outages starting today — and they could continue the planned outages for weeks or even months.

Nuclear power plant explosion in Fukushima, Japan, on Saturday, following that nation's strongest earthquake in history.
Nuclear power plant explosion in Fukushima, Japan, on Saturday, following that nation’s strongest earthquake in history.

But that’s just a metaphor for the sustained global energy shortages that are likely, as the safety and long-term viability of nuclear power comes under more intense scrutiny than at any time in history.

How do we know that’s the likely outcome?

Because prior nuclear disasters, such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, had a major long-term impact on nuclear plant construction.

Moreover, those two disasters were ultimately written off to antiquated facilities or poor safety precautions. In contrast, the Japanese nuclear industry prides itself on safety, and the plants struck by the earthquake had far better staff training and equipment, including multiple back-up systems, all of which failed.

Some nuclear experts will counter that newer and safer technologies now exist or can be developed. But given the history of similar promises in the past, those are bound to fall on deaf ears.

The public will now ask …

Is there a fundamental incompatibility between the potential dangers of nuclear energy and the unpredictable wrath of Mother Nature?

That question defies any quick answer and could take years to resolve. Until then, further growth in nuclear power production could be drastically reduced, with potentially far-reaching consequences:

  • Chronic global energy shortages, especially in countries that were counting on new nuclear energy for a large portion of their electric power.
  • Massive, long-term upward pressure on crude oil prices as producers, consumers, and investors upwardly revise their forecasts of fossil fuel demand.
  • Vast sums of investor money diverted from nuclear power plant construction to other alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, and bio-fuels.

:}

Still battling viruses. So hopefully more tomorrow.

:}

CWLP Talks About Joining The Future – How long do you think I can avoid talking about the Middle East

Posted on by
Reply

I have not talked about local issues for awhile but the Illinois Times had several green stories this week so what the heck. Instead of talking about slaughtered civilians and mad men.  I will talk about civility.

http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-8402-cwlp-readies-for-greener-future.html

Thursday, March 3,2011

CWLP readies for greener future

By Rachel Wells

A contract requiring Springfield’s public utility to be more environmentally responsible doesn’t expire for another six years, but local activists are already urging the city and its residents to start thinking now about how today’s decisions can determine City, Water, Light and Power’s seemingly distant future.

In 2006, the Sangamon Valley Group of the Sierra Club threatened costly delay to the construction of CWLP’s newest power plant if the city didn’t agree, among other things, to bring wind energy into its portfolio for at least 10 years. The city agreed, but local Sierra Club president Will Reynolds says the mayor and aldermen elected this April will determine the success of several additional “green” initiatives that CWLP is already researching. If those initiatives are successful, they could prepare Springfield for continued use and promotion of renewable energy, even without a contractual obligation.

“There’s not going to be, unless something really unexpected happens, another Sierra Club agreement that is just going to make CWLP buy all that wind power,” Reynolds said last week at a public forum where CWLP provided an update on its work in renewable energy and sustainability. “What happens next is going to be up to the next city council and the next mayor we elect and it’s going to be up to people organizing and putting on pressure for Springfield to use clean energy.”

Cool Cities is a national Sierra Club program encouraging cities to reduce their carbon footprints. Springfield’s Cool Cities advisory group is already working on preliminary goals for increasing Springfield’s energy efficiency, growing its sustainability-linked economy and conserving land and water. Once the group’s goals are finalized, members will meet with the new mayor.

“If we can take sort of this global, high-level wish-list, at the moment, to the mayor and we get affirmation that ‘OK, this makes sense. I will put the name of my administration behind this,’ then at that point it goes public,” says CWLP Energy Services Office manager Bill Mills. “If there is not affirmation, basically we take our toys and go home because we were told to quit playing.”

Mills’ office is also researching programs that, if adopted, could encourage growth of solar energy production and the use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles by CWLP customers.

At the point when solar power peaks – on hot summer afternoons – CWLP customers and their air conditioners are using the most energy. Increased solar panel use by CWLP customers means the utility is under less stress to power their homes and businesses and can sell more of the energy it produces to the wholesale market. Doing so brings in more money for the utility to use on environmental initiatives, Mills says. Because installation cost is a significant barrier for increased solar power, CWLP is now studying the economics of starting a solar-panel rebate program this fall.

:}

Read more there. More tomorrow.

:}

Food That Is Genetically Modified – Yuck on a stick

Posted on by
Reply

OK, so I am the first one to admit that humans have tinkered with animal’s and plant’s genetics for a 100,000 years before we even knew what genes were. The most famous was the creation or the domestication of wolfs. If you feed them and they did not bite you they got to stay. If they bit you, you killed it and got another one. Made sense when a friendly wolf bred with another friendly wolf, the puppies would be more friendlier. Same with cattle. Breed a big cow with another bigger cow and you get bigger stronger cows. But this process many times took 100s of years and you had time to figure out whether it was safe or not. This is now happening in a single year’s time. There is no telling what we could be unleashing on ourselves. Worse yet, the big players in this area are some of the worst players on the planet. Monsanto, Dow, BSF. Companies known to be rapists of the planet.

http://www.good.is/post/feast-your-eyes-the-atlas-of-genetically-modified-crops1/

Feast Your Eyes: The Atlas of Genetically Modified Crops


Yesterday, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, a nonprofit organization funded in large part by the biotech industry, issued a new report on the status of genetically modified crops around the world.

The Economist has used ISAAA’s data to make a map showing where in the world GM crops are grown. As you can see, the United States is by far the leader in the field, with 165 million acres (66.8 million hectares) of GM crops under cultivation, an increase of nearly 7 million acres on 2009 levels.

Clive James, ISAAA’s director and founder, told the BBC that more than 15 million farmers grow GM crops, and that, “during 2010, the accumulated commercial biotech plantation exceeded one billion hectares [2.47 billion acres]— that’s an area larger than the U.S. or China,” and equivalent to 10 percent of the world’s arable land.

Meanwhile, The Economist pointed out an interesting trend:

Developing countries are planting GM crops at a more rapid rate than rich countries. Brazil has added some 10m hectares [24.7 million acres] since 2008 and overtook Argentina as the second-biggest grower in 2010. India, too, increased its area by over 10 percent last year. The most popular crop is soya, while the most common modification is tolerance to herbicides.

With the European Union having just voted to allow animal feed imports containing up to 0.1 percent GM seeds (previously shipments found to contain any trace of non-approved biotech crops were turned away upon arrival at port), it does indeed seem—for better or for worse—as though GM crops are here to stay.

Chart via The Economist.

:}

We Should Attack Gaddafi Now – He is screwing with the whole world

Posted on by
Reply

I do not normally advise the US to attack third world countries. Especially over oil. But in this case the mad man is attacking his own people. The chaos is shutting down the oil fields in Libya and rippling through the oil world. He is threatening to set the oil fields on fire. He ordered naval vessels to bombard Tripoli. Where is the 5th Fleet when you need them.

http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/02/u-s-gas-prices-spike-6-cents-overnight.html

U.S., Chicago gas prices spike 6 cents overnight

By CNN
Posted today at 10:37 a.m.

A customer purchases gasoline at a Chicago Shell station on Feb. 7, 2011. (Scott Olson/Getty Images) 

U.S. gas prices jumped 6 cents overnight, as the recent spike in oil prices begins to hit filling stations across America. That marks the third day in a row that prices have risen, and brings the national average to the highest level since October 2008.

The national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose 5.9 cents to $3.287, motorist group AAA said Friday. Gasoline also jumped 6 cents overnight in Chicago, where prices averaged $3.497.

So far this week, gas prices have increased nearly 12 cents a gallon. And analysts expect prices to continue higher in the next few days following a sharp rise in the price of crude oil.

Gas prices were highest in Hawaii, where drivers paid $3.757 a gallon, on average. Wyoming had the lowest gas prices at roughly, $3.014 a gallon.

The jump in pump prices follows a surge in prices for crude oil, the main ingredient in gasoline. Oil prices were holding near $98 a barrel early Friday morning, one day after prices hit a high of $103 a barrel — the highest since October 2008.

Economists warn that an energy price shock could hurt the economic recovery in the United States. In general, every $1 increase in the price of oil costs consumers $1 billion over the course of a year.

That’s concerning because consumer spending makes up the bulk of U.S. gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic growth.

Oil prices have been driven higher by political unrest in North Africa and the Middle East, where much of the world’s oil comes from. Despite the surge in prices this week, the amount of oil that has been taken off the world market has been relatively minimal.

Read more about the topics in this post: ,

:}

More next week.

:}

Paul Krugman And Energy Policy – California and what can be accomplished

Posted on by
Reply

It is so basic – save money on energy and there is more to spend on other things.

:}

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/02/paul_krugman_co.html

Friday, February 23, 2007

Paul Krugman: Colorless Green Ideas

Now that the scientific debate over global warming is all but over, Paul Krugman looks at what we can do limit greenhouse gas emissions:

Colorless Green Ideas, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over. The question now is what to do about it.

Aside from a few dead-enders on the political right, climate change skeptics seem to be making a seamless transition from denial to fatalism. In the past, they rejected the science. Now, with the scientific evidence pretty much irrefutable, they insist that it doesn’t matter because any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is politically and economically impossible.

Behind this claim lies the assumption, … that any substantial cut in energy use would require a drastic change in the way we live. To be fair, some people in the conservation movement seem to share that assumption.

But the assumption is false. Let me tell you about … an advanced economy that has managed to combine rising living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy consumption, and managed to keep total carbon dioxide emissions more or less flat for two decades, even as both its economy and its population grew rapidly. And it achieved all this without fundamentally changing a lifestyle centered on automobiles and single-family houses.

The name of the economy? California.

There’s nothing heroic about California’s energy policy… [T]he state has adopted … conservation measures that are … the kind of drab, colorless stuff that excites only real policy wonks. Yet the cumulative effect has been impressive…

The energy divergence between California and the rest of the United States dates from the 1970s. Both the nation and the state initially engaged in significant energy conservation after that decade’s energy crisis. But conservation in most of America soon stalled…

In California, by contrast, the state continued to push policies designed to encourage conservation, especially of electricity. And these policies worked.

People in California have always used a bit less energy … because of the mild climate. But the difference has grown much larger since the 1970s. Today, the average Californian uses about a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60 percent as much electricity, and … emit[s] only about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide.

How did the state do it? In some cases conservation was mandated directly, through energy efficiency standards for appliances and rules governing new construction. Also, regulated power companies were given new incentives to promote conservation…

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

God Bless You Martin Luther King – You gave your all

Posted on by
Reply

Where ever you are Martin, thanks so very much for your legacy. You will always be remembered.

http://www.writespirit.net/inspirational_talks/political/martin_luther_king_talks/nobel_prize_acceptance_speech

Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

Martin Luther King – Nobel Prize Speech

Martin Luther King’s Acceptance Speech, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1964

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when 22 million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award on behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice. I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeking to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation. I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleagured and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.

After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood, If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity. This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights Bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a super highway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

:}

Go to the site to read the rest. More Tomorrow.

:}

John Stossel And Energy Policy – He fosters the misuse of the word independence

Posted on by
1

All right wing conservatives have to pick there own facts or their own definitions to win arguments. Winning on the merits is never an issue. Family values of course has nothing to do with modern families. It is only about modern christian families. In this Stossel piece, independence is replaced by dependence on the cheapest source. What he side steps is the idea that a country with a balanced portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal, micro hydro, bio and natural gas energy sources is both its own producer, so it is independent from foriegn manipulation and independent in that it is not overly depended on one source of energy, thus insulated from natural interruptions.

August 20, 2008

The Idiocy of Energy Independence

By John Stossel

It’s amazing how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good.

Most every politician and pundit says “energy independence” is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations?

The hitch is that even if the United States were energy independent, it would be protected from none of those things. To think otherwise is to misunderstand basic economics and the global marketplace.

To be for “energy independence” is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer’s floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving “energy independence” would expose us to unnecessary risks — such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn — and ethanol — shortages.

Trade also saves us money. “We import energy for a reason,” says the Cato Institute’s energy expert, Jerry Taylor, “It’s cheaper than producing it here at home. A governmental war on energy imports will, by definition, raise energy prices”.

Anyway, a “domestic energy only” policy (call it “Drain America First”?) is a fantasy. America’s demand for oil is too great for us to supply ourselves. Electricity we could provide. Not with windmills and solar panels — they are not yet close to providing enough — but coal and nuclear power could produce America’s electricity.

But cars need oil. We don’t have nearly enough.

That doesn’t keep the presidential candidates from preying on the public’s economic ignorance.

“I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project — named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before,” John McCain said. “This nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025”.

Barack Obama, promising to “set America on path to energy independence,” is upset that we send millions to other countries. “They get our money because we need their oil”

:}

Wonder who is picking up his tab. More tomorrow.

:}

Mark Steyn – Ethanol is starving people

Posted on by
Reply

A direct comparison between George Will’s love of coal (reportedly he sleeps with it) and Mark Steyn’s hatred of Alternative renewal energy shows that conservatives are big business shills. Plus it shows how long ago the conservatives hated Barack Obama.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/162162/corn-you-can-believe/mark-steyn

Corn you can believe in

Who to blame for the biofuel madness that’s starving people from Haiti to Burkina Faso to Indonesia? Well, Senator Obama’s still boasting about it:

In 2005, Obama passed amendments to the 2005 Energy Policy Act which would double the amount of ethanol used in our gasoline supply by 2012 (from 2 billion to 8 billion gallons*); provide a tax credit for the retail purchase of E-85 fuel; and established an applied research program to improve technologies for the commercialization of a combination hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle; or a plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle. The Chicago Sun-Times reported, “Hastert, meeting with reporters on Friday, praised the “incredible teamwork” of the delegation, singling out freshman Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for his work on the House-Senate committee, which cut the final deals on the transit bill and ethanol tax breaks. The energy bill included an incentive for the use of what is called E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas that can be used in “flexible fueled” cars and is supposed to be cheaper than conventional fuel. The bill calls for gas companies to get a tax credit to cover 30 percent of the cost to install E-85 pumps at service stations, up to $30,000.”

*Does “2 billion to 8 billion gallons” count as “doubling”? Hey, this is government math.

:}

Only 28 conservatives columnist and bloviators to go. More tomorrow.

:}