Re: chuck the shuttle, we need an alternative fuel source
- From: John Smith <assemblywizard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:41:10 -0700
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?
.
- References:
- chuck the shuttle, we need an alternative fuel source
- From: John Smith
- chuck the shuttle, we need an alternative fuel source
- Prev by Date: Re: chuck the shuttle, we need an alternative fuel source
- Next by Date: Glenn A. Baxter K1MAN
- Previous by thread: Re: chuck the shuttle, we need an alternative fuel source
- Next by thread: Glenn A. Baxter K1MAN
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
