RadioBanter - View Single Post - BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth

June 23rd 04, 08:58 PM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

The OPEC oil embargo happened just before his "tour of duty". It was of
major concern to all.

There were *two* OPEC oil actions/embargoes/pricehikes/whatever. The
first was in 1973 (three years before Carter was elected) and the
second in 1979 (IIRC). Both were *major* factors in pushing inflation
up and prosperity down. Neither was Carter's fault.

I think one of the reasons people dislike Carter and his time so much
was the general mood caused by the OPEC mess. Up until then, "the
future" had always been pitched to us Americans as being a
techno-wonderland of more, more, more. Faster, more powerful cars.
Supersonic airliners would replace jets the way jets had replaced
piston-engine prop planes. Our houses would be bigger, more luxurious,
and further out in the 'burbs. Yet our commutes would be fast and
relaxing in George Jetson vehicles. And we could buy it all on
inexpensive credit because interest rates would be low and our incomes
growing much faster than inflation.

The reality was just the opposite. And Carter told us we'd have to
settle for less, turn down our thermostats, wear sweaters, carpool,
take transit, etc.

Who wanted a future like that?

We've been told by Bush that we'll all be driving hydrogen cars - by when?

We were told that in Popular Science in the 60's. Again, So what?

Simple: Rather than deal with the realities of energy policies, Bush tells us
there is a cheap clean technological solution "just around the corner". Heck,
he even had the governor of California fooled. (The Guvernator inquired about
having a Hummer converted to hydrogen power. The cost was something like
$250,000 - not including a source of fuel. Not exactly practical.)

Hydrogen *may* be a fuel of the future. But it's a long long way from being
practical for today's problems or those of the near future.

"Practical" is usually based upon mass production.

That's just one of the factors.

A hydrogen car is, of necessity, more complex and therefore more
expensive than an equivalent petrol car. Storing enough hydrogen to
get a reasonable range is a big techno problem.

But the bigger problem is "where will all the hydrogen come from?"
Hydrogen does not occur naturally in large quantities. It can be
derived from many sources but they all require serious new
infrastructure that will cost years and billions to install. And the
result may not be any cheaper than oil.

Meanwhile, US oil imports continue to rise and the money keeps flowing
away from the USA.

And President Bush is not the first to suggest that some scientific
breakthrough was close at hand. Billary made an announcement that there was a
breakthrough in AIDS research that was about to revolutionalize the care
delivered to those victims.

One mistake doesn't justify another. And as terrible as AIDS is, we
are not dependent on foreign imports in order to deliver care to AIDS
patients.

Still, it sounds nice, makes for great photo ops and is a pleasant PopSci
diversion from the reality that the US imports way too much oil, and pays way
too much for it in the process. That payment isn't just in dollars per
barrel.

Agreed. But as long as we insist on not harvesting OUR reserves yet are
willing to let the Arabs suck themselves dry, what are we to do.

First off, our reserves are not that large. Nor are they easy or
inexpensive to reach. Look up how much oil we'd get if we allowed
unrestricted drilling in Alaska. It's not nearly enough for us to tell
OPEC to stuff it.

What needs to be done is simply to become more efficient and wiser in
our energy use. But that's a complex set of problems that requires
discipline and longterm investment.

This isn't news. This "crisis" has been in the wings for decades. People
a lot wiser than you or I have been promising this was coming, and they were
right.

Yet our leaders since then simply ignore it. That's one reason Reagan
was so popular - he told us it was OK to have big fast cars, consume,
and not worry about where it all came from.

I se this on the same par with the "drought" in the SW United States. To
whom is it a "surprise" that we are millions of acre-feet short of the needed
water supplies out there?

The proponents of desalianation were hushed up by politicos 20 years ago
who insisted that present infrastructure would support SW US needs well into
the 21st Century.

Well, it's the 21st century now...

The problem is technological disconnect. Too many people just don't
think about what keeps everything running, or what it really costs.
And the political leadership keeps them insulated from it.

For example, it is much more safe, clean and efficient to travel by
modern electric railways like France's TGV than by air or car. For
distances up to several hundred miles it's actually faster. But
building such systems costs time and money, plus a commitment from
govt. that just isn't there. (Amtrak's entire capital budget would
build a few new runways at a major airport).

Or another example: There *used to be* considerable tax credits for
installing energy saving equipment in your home. Replace the old HVAC
with more efficient hardware, insulate, replace the windows, etc., and
document it, and the IRS gave you a break. That was in Carter's time.
Reagan's "get the government off your back" tax simplification dumped
it.

And
that we'll have permanent moon colonies and manned missions to Mars in the
"near future". No mention of how it will be paid for, or what real benefits
will accrue. Heck, there isn't even a commitment to save the Hubble space
telescope or replace the shuttle.

Again...all of this "forecasted" in the 50's and 60's.

And it hasn't happened because of the enormous cost and dubious benefits. But
now Bush talks about it like we should make it a national priority.

And why shouldn't we?

Because it's simply not worth what it will cost to do it.

For example, consider the fact that it is estimated to cost $26,000
per pound to deliver freight to the moon. That's based on mass
production of next-generation rockets specifically designed to do the
job. Maybe that price can be shaved a bit, but it is fundamentally
governed by the physics of the situation.

Now figure how many *tons* of equipment and supplies need to be
shipped to the moon in order to set up a permanent base. Remember that
the temperature on the lunar surface varies more than 400 degrees from
day to night, and that each is 2 weeks long. Also remember that the
moon has no significant magnetic field or atmosphere, so there is
absolutely no protection from any of the various forms of solar and
cosmic radiation that constantly bombard it. Satellites in low earth
orbit are afforded some protection by the earth's magnetic field, and
if things get really bad humans in orbit can get back to the earth's
surface in minutes. The moon is a totally different story.

How many tons of equipment would it take to establish a permanent moon
colony of any size? How many pounds of supplies per year to keep it
stocked?

Or look at how much even the scaled-down ISS has cost so far - and
it's only in earth orbit.

More to come.

73 de Jim, N2EY