will the US military power dominate the world

Stephen Harding wrote:

Regnirps wrote:


Stephen Harding wrote:

That's pretty typical of American thinking. But increasingly, we're going to
find that car is making demands on us that we aren't going to like. In some
areas, that's already the case.

snip

You must be at a University. Faculty? Grad student? I know a Stanford physicist


Former UMass/Amherst computer science dept programmer. Now part-timer and
self-employed technical writer and programmer. [Anyone looking to hire a tech
writer??]


you should talk to. This has been his field for the last 30 years. For
instance, he can give you The Five Reasons Commuter Lanes Don't Work and how
traffic engineers know how to fix most of the problems if the politicians would
let them. There is no looming catastrophe and we are not running out of
resources.


I pretty much agree with that, although I'm skeptical of politically limited
solutions to traffic problems.

Oil will run out probably sometime in the next 100 years, but by the time it
does, I suspect fuel cell technology running on straight H2 (rather than the
initial gasoline) will be meeting energy needs for centuries to come.


snip

I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.
I know H2 has some wonderful advantages. If you allow it to react with
oxygen in a fuel cell you get electricity and water. Zer pollution.
Fantastic! Also, you can store far more energy by using it to dissociate
water into O2 and H2 than by storing it in a battery for instance.
Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg





SMH

Ralph Savelsberg wrote in
:




I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.
I know H2 has some wonderful advantages. If you allow it to react with
oxygen in a fuel cell you get electricity and water. Zer pollution.
Fantastic! Also, you can store far more energy by using it to
dissociate water into O2 and H2 than by storing it in a battery for
instance. Great! However, the big question that very few people seem
to be able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the
H2 should come from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something
you can dig up from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with
nuclear fusion, though that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg


Until we develop nuclear fusion,we can use nuclear fission.

We must put more effort into waste disposal and 'burning' of hi-level
wastes.And put all the waste into the Yucca Repository until those
techniques are developed.



--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.

Come on Ralph! Everyone is OT on r.a.m these days! Go ahead! Be
naughty! Do it! In fact...let's bash French fuel cell technology!!!

Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.

But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.

But I really think this technology is going to fly...and probably
nuclear power will triumph over the long haul.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:


I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but
I certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.


Come on Ralph! Everyone is OT on r.a.m these days! Go ahead! Be
naughty!
Do it! In fact...let's bash French fuel cell technology!!!

In fact I stopped posting alltogether a few months ago. The irritation
over the stupidity being expressed by people from both sides of the
Atlantic (and some other parts of the world as well) had begun to
outweigh the enjoyment I got from many of the discussions and
interesting exchanges of ideas/information. Anyway, I'm back now.
It's not the fact that its off-topic that stopped me from getting
involved in this thread, but its title.


Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be
able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the
H2 should come from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not
something you can dig up from the ground. Perhaps our hope should
lie with nuclear fusion, though that's not without its own
problems either. In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible
energy/environmental crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing
one problem with another.


There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.

But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.

But I really think this technology is going to fly...and probably
nuclear power will triumph over the long haul.


SMH


I realise that truly `green' types of energy simply aren't enough.
Wind-power is suitable for some situations, as is electricity from solar
panels. In some cases biomass can be a nice addition, but even a
combination of these on any realistic scale cannot satisfy all our
energy needs. We will run out of fossile fuels in the future. That's
simply a matter of consuming them faster than they are being produced.
As for nuclear technology I tend to be somewhat pessimistic. We will
also run out of useful fissionable materials, although on a longer
timescale than the fossile fuels. And then there is the issue with the
waste. Jim Yanik has great hopes for future technology to do the trick,
but I'm not so sure. Fission might be the only thing to keep us going
until fission comes along, but
who knows how long it will take to get nuclear fusion working properly?
For know the energy it takes to create an environment suitable for
fusion exceeds the energy you get from the fusion. Knowbody really knows
how big a tokomak must be before you could expect it to actually deliver
energy.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:14:42 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:

I
clearly was looking for an answer to the questions I asked, so they
weren't rhetorical.

You weren't werent looking for any answer,

Not true

you were seeking to pigeon hole
on the basis of deliberately loaded questioning.

Not true either

Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.

To get you to realise how you come across (at least to me).

Ahhh, more usenet psychoanalysis.

Nope, not that time.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:

Check out the National Flood Insurance Program (Fed Gov't).

Basically they extend insurance to people living in uninsurable
locations like flood plains of major rivers (e.g. Miss/Mo Rivers)
or barrier islands.

Without the program, businesses and housing wouldn't be built there
because of the high insurance costs.

And yes, it's a losing effort. Mother Nature is relentless.

They've gotten smarter about it, though. In a lot of places, you can
insure *once* in a given area, and will only be given the money if you
never build anything there again.

Quite a few city parks being created by this.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Stephen Harding wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
@cs.umass.edu:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from?

Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
(was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.

I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.

But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.

The energy will always be probematic if water is the only thing used. The
energy it takes to free the hydrogen will be equal to the energy you get by
running it through your fuel cell, assuming that there is no energy is lost
in the process (very unlikely). Now, there are ways around this. You can
introduce something else (like Methane above) which tends to help. Or you
can use 'cheap' energy, like solar or nuclear.

In article , rjrgroups6
@gmx.net says...
(Marcus Andersson) schrieb:

And you can't pop in to a restaurant or pub and have a couple of beers
unless you have some designated sober driver.

Next thing that will come up (after that Europeans never brush their
teeth) will be "All Europeans are alcoholics!". #-)

Even midsized cities (100 000 inhabitants, like Kaiserslautern (the
one with Ramstein AF nearby) and regions have a night bus system by
now..


A very good one at that.

Never had a problem getting around when Uncle has decided to send me
there.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article , says...
Regnirps wrote:

car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of social
destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the social
ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic congestion,
depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social behavior.

Yeah, freedom is a terrible thing. We need more public transport. Doesn't it
make you feel good to rob Peter so Paul can ride the bus (monorail/light
rail/cable car/ferry/underground)?

Yes that's what is being done in the name of diversity in transport choices.

But that's the sort of thing government does. Wile *most* car infrastructure
costs (roads, bridges) come from fuel taxes, not all of it does. Some comes
from local property or state taxes which is in effect a type of robbery.

But given automobile users aren't paying the *full* cost of automobile usage,
we're all passing the buck when we pay to drive our cars to some degree.

Health costs associated with pollution being the biggie, and car use is a
significant part of that.

I'm very much in favor of stealing money from the fuel tax fund to support
bus, train transport, and especially the conversion or "banking" of rail
corridors into bike lanes and paths. It's good long term policy.



However my city has extended that policy to converting road lanes to
bicycle lanes. Now we have unused portions of road and the traffic goes
even slower, producing even more polution.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article , B2431
writes
From: Stephen Harding

snip

There are people spending 4 hours or more in their cars for round trip
commutes
to work!

snip

It never ceases to amaze me how some people would rather spend hours in their
own vehicle rather that 30 minutes in public transport. A rather extreme
example of this lunacy was seen after the last Los Angeles earthquake. The
trains were used almost to capacity for a few days then usage dropped rapidly
to near prequake level. People living outside the city simply preferred sitting
in their own vehicles for hours.

The opposite also applies. I live outside London, and used to use public
transport to get to work. The trip took 80 minutes on a good day,
including 10 minutes walk to my local station. I had to change trains
twice, which meant standing on a freezing cold platform in wintertime,
and sweating unbelievably on the underground in summer. Overcrowding was
a daily occurrence all year round. Any train problems meant
unpredictable delays.
Add to that the fact that I had to pay around GBP 1000 for the privilege
(we are talking the late 80's here), plus being 6'6" and 18 stone (250
pounds) meant comfort wasn't something I found too often.

I changed jobs and drove 35 miles each way every day, which took 40
minutes on average, as I was going the opposite way to the London-bound
traffic. No more colds, no more cracking vertebrae from sitting on
unsuitable seats, no more standing with a crick in my neck. And the
company paid the petrol (there was a tax liability, though).

It just goes to show how false generalisations can be.

There are areas in the U.S. where the infrastructure MUST be built to the point
where the majority of travel is done by public transport. Southern California,
NYC etc come to mind. The pollution, damage to the environment etc is un
healthy. The time spent commuting could be spent with family. The net reduction
of petroleum products import would more than enough to justify realignment.

I am not saying confiscation of vehicles is the way to go, but putting major
parts of metropolitan areas off limits to noncommercial and nonpuplic transport
shout work nicelly.

The hard part is getting politicians willing to be voted out of office.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!