| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
August 10th 05, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
John Smith wrote:
We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies. Why can't we have both? And what constitutes military superiority in space? A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests... What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run by a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to so many groups. Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture. -- The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and what they expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect. For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas mileage from new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on gas-guzzling SUVs and the like. But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many people forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer. Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some places. But when you adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the late 1970s. The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether Americans will change the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!" What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg supereconoboxes. But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight, because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace, they'll disappear. 25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway, and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars still exist today. But how many are sold? There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil, might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, and get the good systems working? Priorities need to be examined here... Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it in any way that will result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science - but that global warming isn't. How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy independence? |
|
#2
August 10th 05, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY:
Well, if you know a way to force some private corp or corps into starting now, go for it, I don't--but we can, as american citizens, fund development of alternative energy sources and hire employees to do it for us. "Military superiority?" Simple, that is the ability to win any conflict another nation or nations may engage us in--or, if that fails, to totally destroy their country so that if there are any survivors here, we may at least begin to try to put things together again with out a evil foreign powers control. Perhaps you have an alternative energy source you are working on in your garage, if so, step forward man, all I see are a bunch of kooks with "free energy devices", and while a free energy device may indeed be possible, all I have seen are scams! John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:56:44 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies. Why can't we have both? And what constitutes military superiority in space? A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests... What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run by a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to so many groups. Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture. -- The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and what they expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect. For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas mileage from new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on gas-guzzling SUVs and the like. But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many people forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer. Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some places. But when you adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the late 1970s. The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether Americans will change the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!" What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg supereconoboxes. But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight, because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace, they'll disappear. 25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway, and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars still exist today. But how many are sold? There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil, might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, and get the good systems working? Priorities need to be examined here... Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it in any way that will result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science - but that global warming isn't. How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy independence? |
|
#3
August 10th 05, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? I just love you east-coast liberals with your "feel-good conservation village" notions. Such societies exist (in Europe primarily) --- if you want to live in one, move there. Personally, I prefer my fuel-inefficient 6.0L 32-valve turbocharged engine to your "50mpg highway" wimp-mobile. Since I'm willing to pay the price to run it, and enjoy the freedom it gives me, your "walkable towns" have zero appeal to me. Sooner or later, of course, the democrats will again ascend to power and attemp to social-engineer such crapola into the law of the land, rather than inconvenience a few reindeer with drilling rigs in the neighborhood. beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
|
#4
August 12th 05, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K=D8HB wrote: wrote But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? I just love you east-coast liberals with your "feel-good conservation village" notions. Minnesota is one of the most "liberal" places in the nation, Hans. Such societies exist (in Europe primarily) --- if you want to live in one, move there. I see. You get to determine what America should be like, not me. Why is that? Personally, I prefer my fuel-inefficient 6.0L 32-valve turbocharged engine to your "50mpg highway" wimp-mobile. "Any....fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction". (*) "Wimp-mobile", huh? Is your masculinity and maturity measured in horsepower, cubic inches displaced, and foot-pounds, Hans? Mine isn't. Since I'm willing to pay the price to run it, and enjoy the freedom it gives me, your "walkable towns" have zero appeal to me. *You* don't pay all of the price, Hans. All of us do. We pay it in pollution, we pay it in the trade deficit, and we pay it in having to deal with the folks who sell us the oil, and what they do with the oil money. Most of all, we pay for it in being dependent. Freedom? How much freedom exists when a nation's economy is at the mercy of imports? Nobody is saying that *you* would be forced to live in a "walkable town". Sometime back you bemoaned the lack of the community that you used to see in the radio store/club meeting/etc. I submit to you that the lack of community problem isn't limited to amateur radio, but has become a part of American life, and is driven in part by the detachment of people from the places they live, work, shop, etc. And that detachment is driven in part by overdependence on automotive transportation as opposed to walking, running, biking, etc. Sooner or later, of course, the democrats will again ascend to power an= d attemp to social-engineer such crapola into the law of the land, rather than inconvenience a few reindeer with drilling rigs in the neighborhood. Alaska doesn't have enough oil to end imports, Hans. It would be interesting to see your reaction if they wanted to drill for oil under one of your favorite Minnesota lakes. Or build a nuke plant on one, using the lake water for cooling. Or something similar. I seem to recall a quote from Vonnegut about "they were too damn cheap" or some such. Cheapness involves more than not spending money. 73 de Jim, N2EY (*) - attributed to Albert Einstein |
|
#5
August 12th 05, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote It would be interesting to see your reaction if they wanted to drill for oil under one of your favorite Minnesota lakes. Or build a nuke plant on one, using the lake water for cooling. Or something similar. We have 15,121 lakes in Minnesota (don't believe the "10,000 Lakes" motto on my license plates). Who'd miss a few? I submit to you that the lack of community problem isn't limited to amateur radio, but has become a part of American life, and is driven in part by the detachment of people from the places they live, work, shop, etc. And that detachment is driven in part by overdependence on automotive transportation as opposed to walking, running, biking, etc. Your east-coast roots are showing. Take a view of Minnesota from 30,000 feet and measure the distance across the wheat fields, forests, and lakes.... *You* don't pay all of the price, Hans. Please pass your account information to my banker so that your monthly share can be automatically paid. "My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes." (*) Beep beep de Hans, K0HB (*) Attributed to Ford Prefect I seem to recall a quote from Vonnegut about "they were too damn cheap" or some such. Cheapness involves more than not spending money. 73 de Jim, N2EY (*) - attributed to Albert Einstein |
|
#6
August 12th 05, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
August 12th 05, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
August 10th 05, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY:
Most of these guys will soon be checking into motorized wheelchairs, if they aren't already driving one... those walkers get tiring yanno! John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:56:44 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies. Why can't we have both? And what constitutes military superiority in space? A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests... What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run by a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to so many groups. Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture. -- The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and what they expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect. For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas mileage from new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on gas-guzzling SUVs and the like. But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many people forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer. Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some places. But when you adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the late 1970s. The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether Americans will change the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!" What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg supereconoboxes. But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight, because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace, they'll disappear. 25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway, and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars still exist today. But how many are sold? There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil, might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, and get the good systems working? Priorities need to be examined here... Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it in any way that will result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science - but that global warming isn't. How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy independence? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
