Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 12:16 PM 01/30/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:05:46AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: That's a pretty easy decision to make, eh? Ethanol is renewable, oil isn't. Ethanol doesn't pollute, oil does. Ethanol doesn't require troops in the Middle East, wars, and resultant terror attacks, oil does. Quite simple. Ethanol pollutes, any hydrocarbon is going to be mixed with N2 and make NOx, there's no getting around it with any kind of Otto engine. Yes, of course, there's always NOx (although that can largely be dealt with by cats), but the other stuff, sulfur and particulates, is gone, and there are no problems whatsoever from things like spills, which are quite catastrophic even in the short term. Biofuels are also greenhouse neutral. The big pollution issues with ethanol are in growing the corn, sugar, etc. that's used to brew the stuff, fermenting it, and distilling it. Even if it's grown organically (or at least without pesticides, which is easier to do with corn that doesn't have to look good for market), it's still a big issue with habitat destruction, and by the way, have you ever smelled a brewery? :-) Photovoltaics, on the other hand, have all the wonderful toxic chemical problems of the semiconductor industry. Solar thermal power sources are pretty well-behaved technology, though except for water heaters they aren't very common.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:32:08AM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: The big pollution issues with ethanol are in growing the corn, sugar, etc. that's used to brew the stuff, fermenting it, and distilling it. There's no *real* pollution (toxic emissions, that is) from fermenting and distilling it. And yes, I've smelled brewerys, in fact done a fair amount of brewing and distilling myself. Major difference between the emissions of ethanol plants and petrorefineries. Ethanol from biomass is complete nonsense. For corn, certainly, only the current subsidies make it viable. But it works for Brazil using sugar cane, they run a major portion of their vehicles on it. So is biodiesel, given what fuel yield/m^2 is (can make sense for you personally if you have a lot of land, doesn't scale for the culture as a whole). 635 gal @ acre for a permaculture crop like oil palm works pretty well. It might not be the whole answer, but it's certainly part of the solution. But even here in the northern midwest US, I can grow enough canola on two acres to fuel my car, and I've got 40 acres to play with at present. Works for me. You can make synfuel from biomass, though, there have been a few new processes (catalyzed, low temp) and reactor designs lately. There's a lot of cellulose and lignin out there. Ethanol sucks, but synmethanol has interesting synergisms. It is currently made from synthesis gas (which is mostly made from reformed natural gas, but can also be made from fossil (oil, coal, shale) or biomass, with hydrogen input) on a very large scale. Fossil fuel lobby goes in bed with the synmethanol lobby. Methanol has about half the energy density of gas, but it can be burned in ICUs (producing a cleaner exhaust), processed in onboard reformers and direct methanol fuel cells. Current fuel cells use platinum catalysts, but it is not fundamental to the principle. Methanol easily reforms to hydrogen and carbon dioxide, so it's your foot in the door of hydrogen economy. I'd say it's the best storage form of hydrogen for small mobile applications (planes and ships and large trucks excluding). Yes, synfuels are definitely part of the solution. Even if it's grown organically (or at least without pesticides, which is easier to do with corn that doesn't have to look good for market), Once again -- corn is a pathetic feedstock for ethanol. it's still a big issue with habitat destruction, ??? The farms are already there, native flora long gone. In many cases, at least here in the midwest, much of this farmland is actually wetlands that have been drained. Crush the drain tiles, fill the ditches, plant cattails. The whole environment benefits and you have an excellent permaculture ethanol crop. And excellent livestock feed left over after the distillation. It's a real win-win. and by the way, have you ever smelled a brewery? :-) Yeah, Milwaukee is full of them. Doesn't smell nearly as bad as the paper mills. Pretty much the same as a bakery. And I don't have to worry about it being toxic. Ecoaudit of bioethanol is a desaster, period. Not if the feedstock is grown organically. And the idea that organic farmers can't produce as well as chemical/industrial agriculture is a total myth, disproven many times over. In fact, chemical farming only works with massive crop subsidies. Take away that corporate welfare (and the farmers here get absolutely obscene amounts of money from the gov't) and they are instantly bankrupt, while the organic farmers aren't. Biomass grown as a permaculture crop such as such as switchgrass works even better -- native prairies can be restored, for instance, on marginal or worn out farmland and makes a terrific feedstock. Cattails are another, in fact within 30 miles of me there are at least 10,000 acres of cattails the state would allow me to harvest, possibly even give me a grant to do it -- and that produces at 28 *dried* tons @ acre with a 35-40% starch content. That's a lot of ethanol going to waste. Right now they're spending money trying to burn it to get rid of it. There are many more examples -- a tremendous amount of feedstock gets landfilled. Sewage sludge can be gasified and synfuel made from the gas -- right now the cities *pay* farmers to spread it on their land, which, here in WI will very soon be illegal and the sludge landfilled. (snip) -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: The big pollution issues with ethanol are in growing the corn, sugar, etc. that's used to brew the stuff, fermenting it, and distilling it. Ethanol from biomass is complete nonsense. So is biodiesel, given what fuel yield/m^2 is (can make sense for you personally if you have a lot of land, doesn't scale for the culture as a whole). You can make synfuel from biomass, though, there have been a few new processes (catalyzed, low temp) and reactor designs lately. There's a lot of cellulose and lignin out there. Ethanol sucks, but synmethanol has interesting synergisms. It is currently made from synthesis gas (which is mostly made from reformed natural gas, but can also be made from fossil (oil, coal, shale) or biomass, with hydrogen input) on a very large scale. Fossil fuel lobby goes in bed with the synmethanol lobby. Methanol has about half the energy density of gas, but it can be burned in ICUs (producing a cleaner exhaust), processed in onboard reformers and direct methanol fuel cells. Current fuel cells use platinum catalysts, but it is not fundamental to the principle. Methanol easily reforms to hydrogen and carbon dioxide, so it's your foot in the door of hydrogen economy. I'd say it's the best storage form of hydrogen for small mobile applications (planes and ships and large trucks excluding). Even if it's grown organically (or at least without pesticides, which is easier to do with corn that doesn't have to look good for market), it's still a big issue with habitat destruction, and by the way, have you ever smelled a brewery? :-) Ecoaudit of bioethanol is a desaster, period. Photovoltaics, on the other hand, have all the wonderful toxic chemical problems of the semiconductor industry. Solar thermal power sources Photovoltaics doesn't have to be done with semiconductor photolitho. Thin-film cells are deposited via plasma discharge in gas phase. Very interesting work is being done with polymer solar cells. The yield is not important, the half life is not important, but how much energy output from unit surface for a given price integrated over lifetime you can get. If your solar cell comes in rolls a buck/m^2 and lasts a couple of years in the desert lots of interesting things become suddenly possible. are pretty well-behaved technology, though except for water heaters they aren't very common.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Thursday 30 January 2003 03:25 am, Bill Stewart wrote: Remember the Synfuel boondoggles under Jimmy Carter? Cracking otherwise-uneconomical oil shale might have been a useful technology if the price of oil were $50-100/barrel. (Meanwhile, we can feel nice and liberal about leaving all this wonderful supply of irreplaceable industrial hydrocarbons for future generations.) I remember when on the way to a river-rafting trip with my Dad, We stopped in some little town in nowhere Wyoming to eat. Across the road was a HUGE apartment complex built in the late 70's to house workers for a shale oil extraction facility. Of course they were abandoned. The towns folk were still paying off the bonds they floated to pay for the streets and sewers that they built to support the hoardes of workers that were supposed to move in. -- Neil Johnson, N0SFH http://www.iowatelecom.net/~njohnsn http://www.njohnsn.com/ PGP key available on request.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:24:13AM -0800, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 30 Jan 2003 at 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote: I'll have to find the studies, but it was the same oil geologists (not enviros) who used the same model to accurately predict the peak of US oil production who did the one on world oil production. Not true. Rather, what happened is that there have been thousands of overly pessimistic estimates, and one overly optimistic estimate for US oil production (an over reaction to past low side errors) , and everyone who makes implausibly pessimistic estimates for world oil production likes to associate themselves with those who disagreed with the one overly optimistic estimate -- but the association is thin. These geologists very accurately predicted the peaking of oil production in the US, and oil production has peaked in over 50 countries already. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/uppsalaJHL.pdf Hubbert was a Shell geologist, working for Shell. Shell has put out a number of reports acknowledging the upcoming peak and decline in world oil production, as, I believe, has British Petroleum. Check Shell's website, they are doing a lot of research into alternative energy and making a lot of investments in that area, including synfuels and biofuels. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15883/story.htm -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
-- These geologists very accurately predicted the peaking of oil production in the US, Completely false. These geologists are not Hubbert, nor did they very accurately predict the peaking of oil in the US, nor do they use Hubbert's methodology, though they claim to. Rather, they are people who would like to associate themselves with Hubbert these geologists are not the successors to Hubbert, but the successors to LImits to Growth, and the club of Rome, who predicted total exhaustion of oil supplies and ensuing economic collapse in the 1980s. Hubbert estimated the amount of oil remaining from the logistic curves. Those who claim to be his successors assert that there is X amount of oil remaining, and then fit the logistic curve to match X. That is the club of rome technique, which is the opposite of the Hubbert technique. Hubbert predicts oil reserves from observed success in finding oil. Doomsayers predict failure to find oil from alleged oil reserves. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG C9e+ZUPyVGI4wbdMUNNKXWkQWaRXRTL/Nu+zv66g 4tjmevo5q83abI8gkC1baI1odUsQH0a8O86Tquf+1
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 07:59 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 06:38:11PM -0800, Tim May wrote: (snip) Since my life and my safety is vastly more valuable to me than saving $350-$600 a year in gas, I'll be keeping my 3500-pound S-Class. Ah, yes, the old big cars are safer arguement. I've seen studies that went both ways, yes, bigger crushes smaller if it hits it, but smaller cars dodge better. Dodging may be important for motorcycles (yes, I have one, a BMW R1100R), but not for any of the accidents I have seen or been in. These usually happen when someone makes a sudden lane change, turns in front of another, runs a red light, fails to negotiate a curve, fails to stop/merge/etc., and so on. The laws of physics are what they are. A 3500-pound vehicle colliding with a 2000-lb vehicle will have the expected effects, all other things being equal. They are not, of course, but even in the other things the larger vehicle usually has advantages. My 300 SE has a long hood, with lots of crush length, lots of steel to absorb energy. And a steering column safely ahead of me. And dual airbags. The roof is strongly reinforced. The Volvo folks got most of their know-how in building strong cars from the Mercedes-Benz data open sourced in the late 50s, early 60s, and later. Personally, I don't believe there are many accidents, just a lot of inattentive people. I've made it to age 60 driving a lot of small cars, motorcycles, and bicycles, somehow managed to survive. Haven't had an accident in a long, long time, although I've seen a lot of people doing pretty stupid things on the highway. OTOH, when I was younger and wilder I managed to smash up quite a few cars, some of them quite badly, one head on at 75, another one spun out a 110. A bad bike spill racing another guy put in a wheel chair for 6 weeks. Fate, I think, also has a lot to do with it. I have witnessed three accidents, but only have been in one. This was a motorcyclist running a red light and smashing into the front of my compact car, a 1972 Mazda RX-2. It did substantial damage to my engine compartment. Either my Mercedes or my Explorer would have absorbed the impact better. So, just one accident in my 51 years, not caused by me, compared to your 3 or more, caused by you. So I suppose you have earned the right to explain to me why I should squeeze myself into a Honda Lupo so I can save the planet. (Actually, the little golf car runabouts are slightly popular (maybe one car in 2000 is one of these golf carts) near the downtown beach area around here. But not on the California freeways, and most definitely not the on the highway which consumes most of my driving: the mountainous Highway 17 between Santa Cruz and San Jose, with 18-wheelers only a foot away. I wouldn't want to be sitting inside a golf cart just over a meter high when the wheels of an 18-wheeler are taller!) If a semi tries to kill you, driving your MB ain't going to do you much good. Believe me. I didn't speak of absolute safety, only relative safety. A 3500-pound steel Mercedes sedan is going to withstand a collision with a truck better than a carbon fiber golf cart riding no more than a meter high. --Tim May Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 07:52 PM 01/29/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 06:33 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. Remember the Synfuel boondoggles under Jimmy Carter? Cracking otherwise-uneconomical oil shale might have been a useful technology if the price of oil were $50-100/barrel. (Meanwhile, we can feel nice and liberal about leaving all this wonderful supply of irreplaceable industrial hydrocarbons for future generations.) The subsidies for corn ethanol are indicative of the problem with interfering in markets: -- someone decided corn good, oil bad! -- those with a lot of corn, like Archer Daniels, sent in their lobbyists to push for this point of view Bob Dole, Senator from ADM, Republican protector of free markets. One reason for corn ethanol instead of sugar ethanol is that that the US prices for sugar are artificially kept high with import tariffs (and of course with the Cuba embargo), which is also why soda is mostly made from corn syrup instead of sugar. As for Iraq, letting them keep Kuwait in 1990-91 almost certainly would have driven the price of oil _DOWN_. A nation like Iraq is more interested in pumping than in hoarding, The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve made some seriously incompetent moves with its timing of buying and selling oil around Desert Scam, at least if their goals were related to moderating price swings, making oil available to US industry, or to managing their costs. When the market was really tight and prices were rising, they bought heavily, paying a lot more than they should have and making oil scarcer in the US, and when the war was largely decided and oil prices were dropping because there was no major need for hoarding, they started dumping their oil, depressing prices further. And don't decide that cornohol (sounds like cornhole,doesn't it?) or biodiesel or miracle weed is something that markets ought to be distorted in favor ofelse we'll get the kind of market distortions cited above, and a non-optimum solution. Well, the indirect market manipulation policies are definitely skewed in favor of Miracle Weed from high-tech California growers instead of ditchweed from Kansas or Mexico.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Really, Eugene, you need to think deeply about this issue. Ask your lab associate, A. G., about why learning and success/failure is so important for so many industries. Read some Hayek, some von Mises, some Milton Friedman. And even some David Friedman. I'm with Tim on this (though I've always found Eugene to be one of the most interesting and valuable contributors to discussions here). The only thing I'd add is that many folks in the technology community or computer industry who are otherwise libertarian have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to government funding of basic research: they like it. More than that, in fact, they'll argue that it's necessary. I suspect much of this comes from the reward structure of grad programs in CS (and I presume other disciplines), where you win if you get DARPA etc. grants. The government is seen as a benign force at worst, a boon at best. By now, everyone's used to it and find its difficult to imagine life without the tax largesse. Also, professional associations like ACM and IEEE argue for more tax handouts... -Declan
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 06:33 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. More than that, it's the farm subsidies that make corn so cheap that it's the cheapest home heating fuel on the market. Corn is a really poor choice, as feedstocks go, for making ethanol, but despite the absurdity of the whole thing, that's what's being pushed by both gov't and agri-corps. Same with biodiesel from soybeans -- an even worse choice in feedstock, but exactly the same scenario. The subsidies for corn ethanol are indicative of the problem with interfering in markets: -- someone decided corn good, oil bad! -- those with a lot of corn, like Archer Daniels, sent in their lobbyists to push for this point of view A small biodiesel producer in Vermont got shut down by the EPA not too long ago because they wouldn't pay $100,000 to the National Biodiesel Board to join (http://www.biodiesel.org/ -- they are one part of the agri-corp welfare conspirators pushing soybeans for biodiesel) and couldn't pay the million or so the EPA wanted to test the safety of their product. Biodiesel is pretty safe, people even drink it at promos. Again, typical of the shake down state. Once handouts and subsidies start, both sides try to limit who gets them...hence the situation where it's illegal to grow peanuts without a license. (As the chestnut goes, the Founders must be spinning in their graves.) What about subsidies for gasoline, e.g., going to war over oil? I'm against it. And there are simple solutions: the price of oil and gas goes up and down in response to supply, threats, etc. If gas hits $7 a gallon, maybe electric golf carts begin to look more attactive. As for Iraq, letting them keep Kuwait in 1990-91 almost certainly would have driven the price of oil _DOWN_. A nation like Iraq is more interested in pumping than in hoarding, which the Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families are perfectly prepared to do (hence OPEC). In any case, the solution is simple: it ain't the job of the U.S. military to run around the world picking regimes we like and regimes we don't like. Let markets clear. And don't decide that cornohol (sounds like cornhole,doesn't it?) or biodiesel or miracle weed is something that markets ought to be distorted in favor ofelse we'll get the kind of market distortions cited above, and a non-optimum solution. You folks here pay lip service to aspect of free markets and anarcho-capitalism,but many of you consistently fail to see the follow-through, the applicability to the world around you. You need to have faith that greed is good, that free markets optimize a lot better than planners in Washington or Tokyo or Moscow do. And while no planning job is ever perfect, no optimization makes everybody happy, at least with free markets there is not the coercion and graft which feeds the state. --Tim May He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -- Nietzsche
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 06:38:11PM -0800, Tim May wrote: (snip) Since my life and my safety is vastly more valuable to me than saving $350-$600 a year in gas, I'll be keeping my 3500-pound S-Class. Ah, yes, the old big cars are safer arguement. I've seen studies that went both ways, yes, bigger crushes smaller if it hits it, but smaller cars dodge better. Personally, I don't believe there are many accidents, just a lot of inattentive people. I've made it to age 60 driving a lot of small cars, motorcycles, and bicycles, somehow managed to survive. Haven't had an accident in a long, long time, although I've seen a lot of people doing pretty stupid things on the highway. OTOH, when I was younger and wilder I managed to smash up quite a few cars, some of them quite badly, one head on at 75, another one spun out a 110. A bad bike spill racing another guy put in a wheel chair for 6 weeks. Fate, I think, also has a lot to do with it. Last Winter I was doing about 55 when a *huge* SUV spun going the other way, hit the guardrail between the lanes and rolled right over it, right in front of me. He was rolling and spinning around, pretty spectacular to watch, I managed to dodge it. About 6 month before that I had a big van pass me, then broadside another big van right in front of me -- awesome, like two big whales colliding -- I just went around them. Attentiveness and fate, I guess. (Actually, the little golf car runabouts are slightly popular (maybe one car in 2000 is one of these golf carts) near the downtown beach area around here. But not on the California freeways, and most definitely not the on the highway which consumes most of my driving: the mountainous Highway 17 between Santa Cruz and San Jose, with 18-wheelers only a foot away. I wouldn't want to be sitting inside a golf cart just over a meter high when the wheels of an 18-wheeler are taller!) If a semi tries to kill you, driving your MB ain't going to do you much good. Believe me. I had semi force me off the road a couple years ago, I was driving a pickup but it wouldn't have mattered what I was driving if I hadn't been able to get out of his way. I hit a school bus once head on doing 75 when he suddenly turned left in front of me, and I was driving a full-sized '54 Ford. The only thing that saved me then was that it was a convertible and I wasn't wearing the seatbelt. I went right out thru the top (it was down) and luckly so, because the engine ended up in the drivers seat. And then there's the issue of carrying passengers, cargo, plus the Right, if you need a truck, fine, but most of us have at least a couple of vehicles, and also most of drive alone 90% of the time. availability of repairs in small towns, etc. That's irrelevant to me, if I can't fix it, probably no one else can either. Nor would I let them. A lot of theoretically good solutions fail for market reasons, what someone correctly said is Metcalfe's Law, or the fax effect. Until fueling stations carry exotic fuels, or until all cars and trucks are reduced to golf cart sizes, the disadvantages outweigh the slight savings in fuel costs. To you perhaps, as long as your investments hold out. I'm trying to arrange my life so that I don't have to pay for fuel, food, rent, heat, lights, or taxes. Switching all my vehicles to diesel engines that can run on biodiesel I can grow myself, and get excellent economy besides, is part of that. I'm quite surprised to see, on this list and on other lists, the ignorance of basic economics. Markets clear. Gas costs what it costs. To argue that there is a moral cost to consider, as some on those other lists have been arguing, is silly. Prisoner's Dilemma and all the usual arguments apply. It's why I'll be safer when I run into Harmon on the freeways. His heirs will appreciate his savings in gasoline for the time he owned his Lupo. Diesel, Tim, they run on diesel. Too bad MB won't import any of those hi-tech diesel they make to the US because of the crummy fuel here. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
When Bush is talking about a hydrogen economy, remember that he's really referring to Orion-engine cars... At 06:38 PM 01/29/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: It's why I'll be safer when I run into Harmon on the freeways. His heirs will appreciate his savings in gasoline for the time he owned his Lupo. Nahh - You can carpool. Just put his Lupo in the back of your SUV; the two of you should be able to lift it, and it shouldn't slow down the SUV that much. Some of the electric vehicles look like they'd be safe enough to drive, but some just don't, and if I'm going to be stuck with something that only goes 30mph, I'd rather have an electric bike. Another discussion was Hard on the highway? It goes 80 mph. There was that VW RetroBeetle commercial about 0-60mph? Yes, and I'd expect Lupo's acceleration is probably slower. Top Speed is certainly important, but acceleration is an important part of avoiding problems. (My full-size Chevy van gets about 16mpg, in the 6 cylinder model, which is a lot better than the previous one, which got 8 mpg when all 8 cylinders were working, 7 mpg when only 7 were5 with 5. More annoyingly, my Chrysler PT Cruiser only gets about 22mpg, and it's the older model without the turbot. It's a bit heavier than my 1985 Toyota wagon that got 27mpg, but you'd think that Detroit would have done some engine efficiency development in 15 years.)
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. More than that, it's the farm subsidies that make corn so cheap that it's the cheapest home heating fuel on the market. Corn is a really poor choice, as feedstocks go, for making ethanol, but despite the absurdity of the whole thing, that's what's being pushed by both gov't and agri-corps. Same with biodiesel from soybeans -- an even worse choice in feedstock, but exactly the same scenario. Ethically, the entire situation is absurd. Realistically, if someone actually wants to try to build say, a hydrogen powered car, government interference in your business is a fact of life, and looking for angles to Make It Work are the only way to attempt to compete. There are a metric assload of good ideas that have been killed by government interference in markets. A small biodiesel producer in Vermont got shut down by the EPA not too long ago because they wouldn't pay $100,000 to the National Biodiesel Board to join (http://www.biodiesel.org/ -- they are one part of the agri-corp welfare conspirators pushing soybeans for biodiesel) and couldn't pay the million or so the EPA wanted to test the safety of their product. Biodiesel is pretty safe, people even drink it at promos. And the head of the National Biodiesel Board has been running around trying to tell home brewers of biodiesel they had to pay the federal road tax on the stuff they made, which is quite untrue, to discourage home brewing. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
at Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:18 PM, Bill Frantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. Actually, Oil companies are all in favour of competing technologies - provided they get to control them. Solar may be an exception though; wind is ok as the massive installations, land usage permissions and nature of the output fluctuations mean you really can't start off small (they are fine to feed into a large system where the overall average would be fairly level, though) but solar is just too easy to reduce down to individual installations in individual homes or businesses; only technologies that permit a service based business model (delivery of electricity and/or production of fuels that can't be done without massive plant) are encouraged :(
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 04:23 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:36:20PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Although canola oil is a much better source for fuel. And diesels a much better IC engine for hybrids. Even in non-hybrids, VW builds some pretty nice diesel cars, including the Lupo, on the market for a couple years now, which gets 80mpg. And the prototype that VW's CEO drives around in that gets 280mpg. From http://www.used-volkswagen-cars.co.uk/volkswagenlupo.htm: As befits a small car, the cheapest models come with a 1.0-litre engine that is decent enough, though finds it hard going on the motorway. Hard going on the motorway? It cruises at 80mph. And as much as I love riding bicycles, even in Winter, the Lupo certainly has a lot more practical uses than a bike. Even neater is their new one tho -- http://www.vwvortex.com/news/index_1L.html It too will do 75mph -- fast enough for the likes of me. At 239mpg. What's that saying about muscle cars? Something about the size of their motors is an inverse ratio to the size of their dicks? It's an old and silly line. I value my life quite highly. I put about 8000 miles per year on my main car (and about 4000 miles per year on an older SUV I used to haul large items, etc.). My car gets about 20 mpg. This costs me about $700 per year in gasoline. Some of the leftie/environmentalists on another list I am on attempted to argue, strenuously, that I owed it to the planet and to yourself to start driving a Prius, a hybrid that the enthusiasts say averages around 40 mpg. Whatever the exact number, if it is 40 mpg it would save me about $300-400 per year in gas, depending on the grade of gas it takes. (Of course, my 1991 Mercedes-Benz is bought and paid for, and costs less than a Prius by about $6000-$9000, based on blue book comparisons of early 90s MBs to late 90s-early 00s Priusi. Saving $350 a year will take 15-25 years to amortize, modulo others costs.) Then there's safety, and personal injury insurance rates. If my 3500-pound S-Class hits a Prius, the laws of physics dictate what happens. And if I hit a golf cart, er, a Honda Lupo, I'd better yell Fore! (Here's a quote about the size: Developed in the wind tunnel and built entirely from composite carbon-fiber reinforced material, it has a width of only 1.25 m (49.2 inches) and is just over a meter high (39 inches).) Since my life and my safety is vastly more valuable to me than saving $350-$600 a year in gas, I'll be keeping my 3500-pound S-Class. (Actually, the little golf car runabouts are slightly popular (maybe one car in 2000 is one of these golf carts) near the downtown beach area around here. But not on the California freeways, and most definitely not the on the highway which consumes most of my driving: the mountainous Highway 17 between Santa Cruz and San Jose, with 18-wheelers only a foot away. I wouldn't want to be sitting inside a golf cart just over a meter high when the wheels of an 18-wheeler are taller!) And then there's the issue of carrying passengers, cargo, plus the availability of repairs in small towns, etc. A lot of theoretically good solutions fail for market reasons, what someone correctly said is Metcalfe's Law, or the fax effect. Until fueling stations carry exotic fuels, or until all cars and trucks are reduced to golf cart sizes, the disadvantages outweigh the slight savings in fuel costs. I'm quite surprised to see, on this list and on other lists, the ignorance of basic economics. Markets clear. Gas costs what it costs. To argue that there is a moral cost to consider, as some on those other lists have been arguing, is silly. Prisoner's Dilemma and all the usual arguments apply. It's why I'll be safer when I run into Harmon on the freeways. His heirs will appreciate his savings in gasoline for the time he owned his Lupo. --Tim May
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Really, Eugene, you need to think deeply about this issue. Ask your lab associate, A. G., about why learning and success/failure is so important for so many industries. Read some Hayek, some von Mises, some Milton Friedman. And even some David Friedman. I'm not arguing pro strong state. I'm merely saying that the tax funded ivory tower RD is complementary in scope to privately funded research. If 95% of it is wasted (and lacking libertarian drive in Euland it's bound to stay that way for quite a while), it's still nice to see a percent or two to go into bluesky research. For instance, which industry would fund simulating biology in machina, using approaches such as eCell and Virtual Cell? In absence of state funding this would be limited to mecenate, which is both limited and fickle. Consider large semiconductor houses like Infineon: the hardware markets are chronically so tight that almost no research in molecular circuitry (though 2d crystals of photopolymerizable Langmuir-Blodgett films would result in viable hybrid molecular memories in less than a decade) is being done. Small players are doing better there, but will their funds suffice for them to survive until their first product? It appears doubtful. I'm with Tim on this (though I've always found Eugene to be one of the most interesting and valuable contributors to discussions here). Thank you. I like your politech list a lot as well. The only thing I'd add is that many folks in the technology community or computer industry who are otherwise libertarian have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to government funding of basic research: they like it. It's not my field, but I don't think we have a lot of evidence either way which approach is better. More than that, in fact, they'll argue that it's necessary. I suspect much of this comes from the reward structure of grad programs in CS (and I presume other disciplines), where you win if you get DARPA etc. grants. The government is seen as a benign force at worst, a boon at best. By now, everyone's used to it and find its difficult to imagine life without the tax largesse. Also, professional associations like ACM and IEEE argue for more tax handouts...
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Eric Cordian wrote: Ovshinsky, the amorphous semiconductor guy, developed a relatively efficient photovoltaic film that could be manufactured by continuous extrusion by a simple machine. For some reason, that never hit the big time either. He had several problems in reliable commercial scale manufacture, efficiency issues, device lifetime. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Actually, VW has a plant making synfuel out of biomass. And we won't have to wait long before oil is $50-100 a barrel, it's at $35 right now and world oil production will peak this decade. In the '80's it was obvious that oil production would peak around 1995. We've already burned up all the solar energy collected from 140 to 250 million years ago - the dinosaur model does not fit the amount of oil we're actually finding. There's a lot more oil in the ground (most of it may be under the oceans) so the price isn't going to rise that much for the next 100 years. That doesn't make biomass a bad fuel, but if it's gonna compete it will have to get down to $20/barrel to be a clear winner. That's a pretty easy decision to make, eh? Ethanol is renewable, oil isn't. Ethanol doesn't pollute, oil does. Ethanol doesn't require troops in the Middle East, wars, and resultant terror attacks, oil does. Quite simple. Ethanol pollutes, any hydrocarbon is going to be mixed with N2 and make NOx, there's no getting around it with any kind of Otto engine. Oil doesn't *need* to make wars either. It's just that people with guns also happen to be oil sellers, and stealing oil is cheaper than buying it. We could just buy Iraqi oil and solve a lot of problems all around. Yes, but importing sugar isn't the answer either. Sugar beets and sorghum grow fine in the US. The best crop, however, is cattails. However, diesels are still a better solution, running on a biodiesel/ethanol mix, perhaps. The main problem is corporate welfare. Farm subsidies and oil subsidies. Until that problem is solved, I don't think we'll see any real solutions, and, unfortunately, the way the world is going, I don't think that will happen in any of our lifetimes. Like I've said before, the key to corruption is to make it work in your favor. The Romans, Spanish, French and American empires are all the same, corruption eventually causes them to collapse. But people still live there, with entrenched corruption. I think our best solution is to escape. Mars might be far enough away that we can start a nice civilazation. But it'll turn corrupt eventually because that's how humans work. So we'll need to leave the keys for future escapes :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tim May Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 06:33 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. snip As for Iraq, letting them keep Kuwait in 1990-91 almost certainly would have driven the price of oil _DOWN_. A nation like Iraq is more interested in pumping than in hoarding, which the Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families are perfectly prepared to do (hence OPEC). The whole purpose of the Gulf War was to take Iraqi oil off the world market and drive up the price of west Texas crude, wasn't it? In any case, the solution is simple: it ain't the job of the U.S. military to run around the world picking regimes we like and regimes we don't like. Let markets clear. The purpose of the proposed Gulf War II is to capture Iraqi oil supplies so that the dollar can continue to be the currency used in world oil transactions, isn't it? --Tim May He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -- Nietzsche
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:46:00AM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: At 09:59 PM 1/29/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 06:38:11PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Diesel, Tim, they run on diesel. Too bad MB won't import any of those hi-tech diesel they make to the US because of the crummy fuel here. I had an '87 MB 300D terrible-diesel for about 5 years (from new). It had the turbocharger and other related components replaced twice ($1800 market value each time). I sold it as soon as the lease expired. Really? Those are supposed to be pretty good engines. In fact I'm seriously contemplating swapping one into my '91 Toyota 4x4 pickup. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:05:46AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Actually, VW has a plant making synfuel out of biomass. And we won't have to wait long before oil is $50-100 a barrel, it's at $35 right now and world oil production will peak this decade. In the '80's it was obvious that oil production would peak around 1995. We've already burned up all the solar energy collected from 140 to 250 million years ago - the dinosaur model does not fit the amount of oil we're actually finding. There's a lot more oil in the ground (most of it may be under the oceans) so the price isn't going to rise that much for the next 100 years. I'll have to find the studies, but it was the same oil geologists (not enviros) who used the same model to accurately predict the peak of US oil production who did the one on world oil production. They couldn't do the world one until later because they couldn't access stats from the USSR, etc. which they have now. That doesn't make biomass a bad fuel, but if it's gonna compete it will have to get down to $20/barrel to be a clear winner. That's a pretty easy decision to make, eh? Ethanol is renewable, oil isn't. Ethanol doesn't pollute, oil does. Ethanol doesn't require troops in the Middle East, wars, and resultant terror attacks, oil does. Quite simple. Ethanol pollutes, any hydrocarbon is going to be mixed with N2 and make NOx, there's no getting around it with any kind of Otto engine. Yes, of course, there's always NOx (although that can largely be dealt with by cats), but the other stuff, sulfur and particulates, is gone, and there are no problems whatsoever from things like spills, which are quite catastrophic even in the short term. Biofuels are also greenhouse neutral. (snip) -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 09:59 PM 1/29/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 06:38:11PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Diesel, Tim, they run on diesel. Too bad MB won't import any of those hi-tech diesel they make to the US because of the crummy fuel here. I had an '87 MB 300D terrible-diesel for about 5 years (from new). It had the turbocharger and other related components replaced twice ($1800 market value each time). I sold it as soon as the lease expired. steve
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
-- On 30 Jan 2003 at 11:31, Eugen Leitl wrote: I'm not arguing pro strong state. I'm merely saying that the tax funded ivory tower RD is complementary in scope to privately funded research. If 95% of it is wasted (and lacking libertarian drive in Euland it's bound to stay that way for quite a while), it's still nice to see a percent or two to go into bluesky research. You will notice a disproportionate amount of blue sky research comes from countries that are highly capitalist. Thus Switzerland is roughly comparable to Sweden in size and wealth, but we see quite a bit of blue sky research coming out of Swizterland, not much from Sweden. Since blue sky research is a public good, only governments can efficiently produce blue sky research. Does not follow, however, that governments *will* efficiently produce blue sky research, and on the available evidence, they do not. There are several mechanisms that lead companies to produce and publish interesting data -- one is to make a name for themselves, as in the human genome project, another his that they like to employ scientists that have published interesting research findings, which means that their scientists want to publish interesting research findings. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vj9XFJICkQyBZHtzNbSmc+aK6sW4+dfeCW2jBsxp 4SNzRPDCqDY1oqcXuKPS207CG2oaSOsRAObNR7CKl
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
-- On 30 Jan 2003 at 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote: I'll have to find the studies, but it was the same oil geologists (not enviros) who used the same model to accurately predict the peak of US oil production who did the one on world oil production. Not true. Rather, what happened is that there have been thousands of overly pessimistic estimates, and one overly optimistic estimate for US oil production (an over reaction to past low side errors) , and everyone who makes implausibly pessimistic estimates for world oil production likes to associate themselves with those who disagreed with the one overly optimistic estimate -- but the association is thin. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 8af9YKuTzIfi6eW+kuKC5iSQr1ItRdPJmiiqa7oK 40um9WOOe1GxHnczql5Bykr/viCnjY0+DHauSAK8v
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
Tim May wrote: For example, the space program. The Moon Flag Planting cost about 100,000 slave-lives (about $125 thousand milliion in today's dollars) to finance. It distorted the market for things like single stage to orbit, which might have happened otherwise. And it created a bureaucracy more intent on spreading pork to Huntsville, Houston, Canaveral, and other pork sites. (Surprising that Robert Byrd failed to get WVa picked as the control center. He was too junior then, probably.) Tim, I read that the otherwise unimpressive International Space Station is utter genius in one respect: it has a subcontractor in *every single one* of the 435 House member's districts. Howie Goodell -- Howie Goodell [EMAIL PROTECTED] *control, embedded and user interface SW consulting* Doctoral Candidate HCI Rsch Grp CompSci UMass Lowell http://HowieGoodell.home.attbi.com
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 30 Jan 2003 at 11:31, Eugen Leitl wrote: I'm not arguing pro strong state. I'm merely saying that the tax funded ivory tower RD is complementary in scope to privately funded research. If 95% of it is wasted (and lacking libertarian drive in Euland it's bound to stay that way for quite a while), it's still nice to see a percent or two to go into bluesky research. You will notice a disproportionate amount of blue sky research comes from countries that are highly capitalist. Thus Switzerland is roughly comparable to Sweden in size and wealth, but we see quite a bit of blue sky research coming out of Swizterland, not much from Sweden. Since blue sky research is a public good, only governments can efficiently produce blue sky research. No, it doesn't follow at all. It follows that to create advanced technologies takes resources and skills beyond the capability of small groups. it's a function of scaling, not politics or authority. You get cool breakthroughs when you invest sufficient resources, smart people and access to the very best of tools and resources. Does not follow, however, that governments *will* efficiently produce blue sky research, and on the available evidence, they do not. 'efficiently produce'...what a fuzzy wuzzy, feelgood, spindoctor bullshit term. There are three way to produce breakthroughs; luck, special insite, many parallel efforts. The most important factor is the third. The second will allow you to make leaps but it's up to the vagaries of genetics there so no organizational issue exists (other than breeding programs perhaps). Luck is pretty much the same for everyone, be there at the right time, with the right resources, and recognize it at the time. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Howie Goodell wrote: Tim May wrote: For example, the space program. The Moon Flag Planting cost about 100,000 slave-lives (about $125 thousand milliion in today's dollars) to finance. It distorted the market for things like single stage to orbit, which might have happened otherwise. And it created a bureaucracy more intent on spreading pork to Huntsville, Houston, Canaveral, and other pork sites. (Surprising that Robert Byrd failed to get WVa picked as the control center. He was too junior then, probably.) I read that the otherwise unimpressive International Space Station is utter genius in one respect: it has a subcontractor in *every single one* of the 435 House member's districts. Which is a better example than one could hope for the efficiency of a three party social/economic system. The free market effect at near maximum efficiency. The folks pushing for more funding should shout this one to the hills. The ISS touches everywhere. To fail it now is to say we all failed. And the only -real- meaure of that failure is our will. The real problem is with the expectations of those who don't understand the -long term- need for this sort of work. The reality is that if we don't spend money on space and other cutting-edge tech's the people who are dying now from starvation and such are dying in vain, and everyone dies in the geological near term. The Earth can -not- sustain a technological society. The future of mankind is a space based society that isn't surface based. That window of opportunity will be about 250 years and we're about 50 years into it. To not spend in space is societal suicide. Ethically the push should be -one way, out-. Personaly, I'd shoot for a 3-way plan; Moon, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn. Involve every country on the planet that wants to play. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 09:08 PM 1/29/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim May wrote... Ask why the U.S.S.R., which depended essentially solely on federal funding, failed so completely. Hint: it wasn't just because of repression. It was largely because picking winners doesn't work, and command economies only know how to pick winners (they think). (A side note should be made here about the fact that some technologies have a very high activation energy barrier...without a very intensive amount of capital, they can't happen. Indeed, aren't we nearly at that point with sub-0.13um technology? It is possible that further advances just won't be possible without direct or indirect government funding.) If you mean photolith below those dimensions you may be right, but as you know scaling down from the top is just one approach. Building up from the bottom (u.e., nanotech) is also receiving both gov't and substantial private funding. Although bulk nano-materials are the first economic applications of this approach (in fact, nano materials, e.g., carbon soot, have been in industrial use for many decades), it looks like structured materials and devices may not be that far behind. steve
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 06:23 PM 1/29/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:36:20PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Although canola oil is a much better source for fuel. And diesels a much better IC engine for hybrids. Even in non-hybrids, VW builds some pretty nice diesel cars, including the Lupo, on the market for a couple years now, which gets 80mpg. And the prototype that VW's CEO drives around in that gets 280mpg. From http://www.used-volkswagen-cars.co.uk/volkswagenlupo.htm: As befits a small car, the cheapest models come with a 1.0-litre engine that is decent enough, though finds it hard going on the motorway. Hard going on the motorway? It cruises at 80mph. And as much as I love riding bicycles, even in Winter, the Lupo certainly has a lot more practical uses than a bike. Even neater is their new one tho -- http://www.vwvortex.com/news/index_1L.html It too will do 75mph -- fast enough for the likes of me. At 239mpg. What's that saying about muscle cars? Something about the size of their motors is an inverse ratio to the size of their dicks? If they intend to sell thin in the US they would be advised to have one 3 wheels instead of an apparent 4. In many states (incl. California) 3-wheeled vehicles are considered motorcycles and get to use the diamond lanes even when occupied by a single passenger. steve
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:14:56PM -0800, James A. Donald wrote: (snip) Tyler said: and the buying up (and subsequent dismantling) of lite rail systems in the LA basin in the 30s and 40s apparently had a major impact on the rollout of vehicles Might we have seen much better public transportation in that area if this capitalist coup-d'etat hadn't occurred? Public transport received, and continues to receive enormous subsidies. Actually that's not true, or at least, the subsidy to public transport pales compared to the subsidy to private transport. Witness the recent billions paid to the airlines, about 20-30 times (in one year, mind you) than rail got in the last 20-30 years. Public highways for truckers is even more obscene. It's quite clear that trucks benefit the most, and do far the most damage to roads, so let them pay the entire cost of highway repair and construction. I'd suggest toll-roads, but that has the serious side effect of aiding surveillance and inhibiting free travel of individuals. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:55:55PM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: If they intend to sell thin in the US they would be advised to have one 3 wheels instead of an apparent 4. In many states (incl. California) 3-wheeled vehicles are considered motorcycles and get to use the diamond lanes even when occupied by a single passenger. Yes, that would be a good idea, although I think the same holds true for at least some European countries too. However, VW seems to be not much interested in shipping a lot of the neat stuff they're making to the US. The really hitech stuff they sell in Europe, but not here. Same with MB and others. The Japanese are the same way, and it's been that way for quite awhile. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Oh come on. Its all economics. (With tech changing the params) Fuel cells for cars are too expensive today. There is not enough methanol production/distrib infrastructure, which costs to create. [insert Metcalfe's law (aka fax or network effect) blurb here] And where do you get to strip-mine the coal for the methanol? Even H. Ford was figuring on using hemp for methanol. The problem is that you need a nuke plant to do the final distillation. That's politics, not economics. The economics will make battery + capacitor + constant-rate Otto engine (aka 'hybrid') keep petrol cheaper than alternative energy carriers and sufficiently clean for a while. You'll see 42 volt cars (soon) before you see fuel cells in cars. Yup, the ability to run the Otto at fixed speed maximizes it's efficiency. When the price of fuel for the 25% max efficiency runs into the 90%+ efficiency of more expensive motors, we'll see things start changing. Just gotta kill off a few more arabs to extend the time when that happens is all. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:53 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: And don't forget his promise that we'll all be able to buy Hydrogen-powered cars by 2020 or so. Guess that's how long he thinks this war on terrorism Don't get it: onboard fuel reforming with methanol is almost done, fuel cells with polymer proton membranes are already good enough (though still being optimized rapidly, particularly in terms of energy density and platinum group metal content) and GM's on the right track with their recent designs. Don't see why it shouldn't hit the markets by 2005. It's interesting that political science has witheld one of the oldest technologies (Grove started it 1838, Mond and Langer in 1889 attained 6 A/square foot energy density; Bockris publicized it in mid-70s again) from the general public. The interesting part is that we didn't use fuel cell technology on noticeable scale by 1980... Nonsense. What political science do you think was stopping Ford or Honda or Volvo or GM from introducing a hydrogen fuel cell car by 1980? Do you think it was the lack of hydrogen storage technology? Not a Poly Sci problem. Do you think it was the lack of methane fuel at filling stations? Not a Poly Sci problem. Do you think it was the very high cost of fuel cell vehicles even today (in prototype form) compared to conventional fuel vehicles? Not a Poly Sci problem. And so on, for H2 storage tanks, reformers, etc. You are generally free to develop your idea of a fuel cell vehicle and to then try to sell it to customers, modulo some minor issues of safety tests, etc. Don't let weird ideological ideas get in the way of being able to evaluate technologies objectively. Careful with that axe to grind, Eugene. --Tim May
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: Nonsense. What political science do you think was stopping Ford or Honda or Volvo or GM from introducing a hydrogen fuel cell car by 1980? What I meant is lack of lots of fat federal grants for research on fuel reformers, hydrogen separation, proton membranes, alternative catalysts, and the like. The fund allocation (or, rather, lack thereof) was sure politically motivated. Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). It's about the single most powerful reason for federally funded research to exist.
RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: And don't forget his promise that we'll all be able to buy Hydrogen-powered cars by 2020 or so. Guess that's how long he thinks this war on terrorism Don't get it: onboard fuel reforming with methanol is almost done, fuel cells with polymer proton membranes are already good enough (though still being optimized rapidly, particularly in terms of energy density and platinum group metal content) and GM's on the right track with their recent designs. Don't see why it shouldn't hit the markets by 2005. It's interesting that political science has witheld one of the oldest technologies (Grove started it 1838, Mond and Langer in 1889 attained 6 A/square foot energy density; Bockris publicized it in mid-70s again) from the general public. The interesting part is that we didn't use fuel cell technology on noticeable scale by 1980... Honi soit qui mal y pense. will last (and its probability for ending!).
RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
And don't forget his promise that we'll all be able to buy Hydrogen-powered cars by 2020 or so. Guess that's how long he thinks this war on terrorism will last (and its probability for ending!). -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Mike Rossing wrote... Just gotta kill off a few more arabs to extend the time when that happens is all. That gives me a damned good idea. Perhaps we can use Camp XRay to do some research on how to melt down Muslims and convert then directly into fossil fuels, bypassing all the middlemen...Muslim-powered vehicles could sport a cute lil' sticker proclaiming Allah On Board. No research needed. People have been making biodiesel out of any sort of fats for ages, including animal fats, fish oil, etc. As we speak, there are many people in this world driving their vehicles on biodiesel made from rendered beef and pork fat. And the Reich was rendering human fat. Although canola oil is a much better source for fuel. And diesels a much better IC engine for hybrids. Even in non-hybrids, VW builds some pretty nice diesel cars, including the Lupo, on the market for a couple years now, which gets 80mpg. And the prototype that VW's CEO drives around in that gets 280mpg. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
Mike Rossing wrote... Just gotta kill off a few more arabs to extend the time when that happens is all. That gives me a damned good idea. Perhaps we can use Camp XRay to do some research on how to melt down Muslims and convert then directly into fossil fuels, bypassing all the middlemen...Muslim-powered vehicles could sport a cute lil' sticker proclaiming Allah On Board. -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 3:43 PM -0800 1/29/03, Tim May wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 03:18 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. ... The issues are complex, but have zero to do with leftie fantasies about oil companies suppressing technologies. I agree, as I said above. At most the purchase of these companies may have slowed research by not providing as much funding. More likely it speeded research by providing a sponsor with a longer term view than the public capitol markets. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the Ameican | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: The 2-4 year payback cycle in the electronics industry, from roughly 1955 to the present, was terribly important. Each generation of technology paid for the next generation, and costly mistakes resulted in companies ceasing to exist (Shockley Transistor, Rheem, Precision Monolithics, and so on...the list is long). Successful products led to the genes (or memes) propagating. Phenotypes and genotypes. This same model gave us, basically, the commercial automobile and aviation industries. I agree completely with what you're saying, and I'm not sure that Eugene would agree with what I'm writing here. One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. Ethically, the entire situation is absurd. Realistically, if someone actually wants to try to build say, a hydrogen powered car, government interference in your business is a fact of life, and looking for angles to Make It Work are the only way to attempt to compete. There are a metric assload of good ideas that have been killed by government interference in markets. I know this is part of what you were saying. This is important to call out. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 03:18 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: At 2:24 PM -0800 1/29/03, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. Some of the leading PV panels are those from BP (British Petroleoum). These can be ordered, along with those from Kyocera, Astropower, Siemens, and others, from many sites. Use Google to find them. My brother worked for one of these companies at their Simi Valley/Thousand Oaks site about 20 years ago. The issues are complex, but have zero to do with leftie fantasies about oil companies suppressing technologies. There is no way to control fundamental breakthroughs, whether PV conversion or caburetors that violate the laws of physics!. Any of the above non-oil companies (and one can add Texas Instruments and others to the list) which develops a more efficient, cheaper to manufacture PV system will find success. --Tim May
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). It's about the single most powerful reason for federally funded research to exist. I should have mentioned in my first reply that you need to spend some time looking into evolutionary learning and markets. For example, the importance of quick feedback and correction, with profits determining which markets are explored. I have strong views on this, having studied the electronics/semiconductor market for many years, having studied carefully the role of intermediate products (such as RTL -- DTL -- TTL -- op amps -- MOS RAMs -- 4-bit microprocessors -- etc.). Products introduced in 1963, say, were generally making the bulk of a company's profits by 1965-66, paying for the 1965 R D and the 1966 product rollouts, which then paid for the 1967-69 cycle, etc. I know this was true of the earlier technologies and it matched everything I saw in my years at Intel and thereafter. The 2-4 year payback cycle in the electronics industry, from roughly 1955 to the present, was terribly important. Each generation of technology paid for the next generation, and costly mistakes resulted in companies ceasing to exist (Shockley Transistor, Rheem, Precision Monolithics, and so on...the list is long). Successful products led to the genes (or memes) propagating. Phenotypes and genotypes. This same model gave us, basically, the commercial automobile and aviation industries. Moon shots, on the other hand, distort markets, suffer from a lack of evolutionary learning, and have almost no breakthroughs (But what about Tang?). I am proud to announce, as your President, the goal of creating our national mechanical brain, a machine which will be built with one million relays and vacuum tubes. I am committing one billion dollars to this noble endeavour. We expect to have the mechanical brain operating by 1970. --President Dwight Eisenhower, 1958. Really, Eugene, you need to think deeply about this issue. Ask your lab associate, A. G., about why learning and success/failure is so important for so many industries. Read some Hayek, some von Mises, some Milton Friedman. And even some David Friedman. Ask why the U.S.S.R., which depended essentially solely on federal funding, failed so completely. Hint: it wasn't just because of repression. It was largely because picking winners doesn't work, and command economies only know how to pick winners (they think). Think deeply about why this list is what it is.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:18:44PM -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: At 2:24 PM -0800 1/29/03, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. All bought up by oil companies? Hmmm -- maybe you should do some googling on solar panels, alternative energy, etc. Solar's been a growing industry for some time, being very widely installed around the world. You can even buy it a Home Depot. It's getting quite cheap, many people are finding it a better buy than paying an electric bill. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 2:24 PM -0800 1/29/03, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the Ameican | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: Nonsense. What political science do you think was stopping Ford or Honda or Volvo or GM from introducing a hydrogen fuel cell car by 1980? What I meant is lack of lots of fat federal grants for research on fuel reformers, hydrogen separation, proton membranes, alternative catalysts, and the like. The fund allocation (or, rather, lack thereof) was sure politically motivated. Well, in your country (Germany, IIRC), perhaps such funding is permissable. In the U.S., it really is not. Constitutionally, that is. The government exists to do certain things, not to pick technology winners. Yes, I realize there was a space program..it was unconstitutional, IMO, as it had nothing to do per se with national defense or other constitutionally-specified purposes of collecting and disbursing taxpayer money. Other programs, like cancer research and diet studies, are even more unconstitutional. See also the next point, about the effects the Moon Shot had on alternatives. Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). The effects are much worse than you imply. Government picking winners means that competitors are undermined and deprecated. Not only does the funding distort the market, but the government often finds ways to actually _ban_ alternatives. (Sometimes the ban is explicit, often it is implicit, in terms of universities and corporations only being allowed to compete in For example, the space program. The Moon Flag Planting cost about 100,000 slave-lives (about $125 thousand milliion in today's dollars) to finance. It distorted the market for things like single stage to orbit, which might have happened otherwise. And it created a bureaucracy more intent on spreading pork to Huntsville, Houston, Canaveral, and other pork sites. (Surprising that Robert Byrd failed to get WVa picked as the control center. He was too junior then, probably.) I don't have time/energy to explain in a lot of detail why you are so wrong here, why your slippage into statism is not only surprising given your subscription to this list, but is also dead wrong. I won't bother responding to your arguments in favor of national socialism. --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. --Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.
Re: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
Tim writes: There is no way to control fundamental breakthroughs, whether PV conversion or caburetors that violate the laws of physics!. Any of the above non-oil companies (and one can add Texas Instruments and others to the list) which develops a more efficient, cheaper to manufacture PV system will find success. Ovshinsky, the amorphous semiconductor guy, developed a relatively efficient photovoltaic film that could be manufactured by continuous extrusion by a simple machine. For some reason, that never hit the big time either. While I will agree with you that fundamental breakthroughs cannot be put back into Pandora's Box, some industries, like automobile manufacturing, have high costs of entry due to regulation and safety requirements. Thus, snidely saying you are free to start your own car company is just a tiny bit disingenuous. As a recent article linked from Slashdot informs us, gadgets sink or swim based on The Whole Product, which includes not only the clever engineering, but the service and support, availability of software, interoperability, consumer culture, the upgrade path, and the perception the company will be around tomorrow. The typical Wintel PC contains not the best microprocessor, not the best bus, most certainly not the best OS. You are free to start your own computer company, of course. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
