----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 12:51
AM
Subject: Some personal thinkings on
energy, etc.
Hello all,
First of all, it turns out my family is fine,
home undamaged. Most of the rest of the city of Ocean Springs, MS is
destroyed, so recovery will take a long time. But they are surviving, and
nicely.
This storm, the bit of an energy crisis we are
having here (probably a taste of things to come) and all have led me to many
days of deep thought on the matters of energy and such, and our future. I
don't know that these things I am going to discuss will actually happen, but I
hope they do. The optimist in me says "there is a chance."
1. We have to find and utilize an alternative to
fossil fuels for automobiles. Hybrids are fine, for now, but overpriced for
the average Joe. I will come back to that point later. We need something else,
be it simple electric driven cars, to a hydrogen powered car. I think both are
very viable, if we only research it seriously. And in the current petrocracy
(who coined this term BTW?), this is not happening. Yes, there are a few $$$
here and there, but it is not being taken seriously. Maybe electric cars for
the daily driver, and for the guys who like power and performance, give him a
nonpolluting, cheaply fueled H2 burner. I think hydrogen will be very useful
for air travel as well. So yes, I am in full favor of the hydrogen economy,
but I want it done seriously, not just talked about like the Bush admin (and
others before him) have done.
2. We need to begin massive programs for
construction of wind farms, direct solar-to-electricity generator farms, solar
and geothermal (heat pump) heating systems for homes, and later on orbital
solar photovoltaic arrays. Will this cost a fortune? Yes. Can we afford it? We
must. And yes, we can, if we can finance Gulf War II. Nuclear should be used
to fill in the gaps, but we should strive to make the gaps as small as
possible.
3. The entire design ideology behind the
manufacture of personal automobiles must change, whether we want it to or not.
These are hard times, and in hard times, hard decisions must be made. The only
way to get a viable non (or very low) polluting vehicle utilizing an
alternative fuel source to be available to the majority of the people in short
order is to make it dirt cheap. NO power windows, power seats, Bose sound
systems, electronic crap, etc. Make it all mechanical, analog, simple. Also,
we can eliminate the very costly and ridiculously overcomplex emissions
control systems from these vehicles, or at least highly simplify them. I would
even suggest eliminating the antilock brake systems. Why? It will make it that
much simpler and cheaper. Less safe? Not if you are a good driver. As a
mechanic, I have seen some very bad things happen when antilock computers
signal the hydraulic control unit to screw around with the wheels for no
apparent reason when the driver is making speed down the interstate. It is a
nice source of income for bodywork........ I have driven non-antilock brake
cars all my life, and in the heavy snows of Buffalo NY. It is not hard to
control the vehicle with some common sense. The cars that lose control the
most often, have been in my experience, the SUV's, with their peculiar weight
distribution. See below. Yes, we would lose many convenience, and perhaps a
few "safety" features. But, you could put the "little guy" in it. This car
should be available for a few $k. At first, maybe even give incentives for
people to get these things. The money they will save afterwards will let it
more than pay for itself, but many people might need a little help to get
things started. Just make it damn simple, and that's it.
4. Insurance companies will most likely want to
tack on a hefty set of extra penalties for the car I just listed above. This
cannot be allowed. Does the federal government have the ability to step in and
say "no, you WILL NOT charge these people more for buying these cars."....? I
think it does. If we acknowledge the fact that we are in an emergency
situation, and we are, just a slowly developing one, then I think stepping in
and limiting the profiteering of the insurance companies will not seem so
alien an idea.
5. Cease production of the big engined SUVs. Lets
see the minivan make a comeback for those larger families. There is no reason
why a 4.8l fuel injected SUV should get 12-16mpg, when I was able to modify
the 5.0l carbureted motor in my old Chevy to get 26mpg on the highway. And I
guarantee you, I could outrun any SUV out there. Its all jetting and timing,
and a hell of a nice camshaft. Back to the SUV's, I routinely nearly get run
over by these things, and most of them I see are only carrying one occupant:
the driver. (Usually on a cellular phone, it seems.) I think people get these
SUV's not because they have need for them, but because it has become a status
symbol. To me it is a symbol as well, one of wasting too much on that which is
not needed, while giving to little to that which needs it the most. The SUV's
are by and large top heavy, and roll over easily. Nor are they safe in an
accident....the frames under these things rust out in no time, and are very
thin steel. The tanklike Caprice's of days gone by were far more sturdy than
these beasts, but still the modern SUV weighs more. Why? Well, the frame is
made of a lot thinner grade steel, but the whole shebang is much larger. Not
to mention the frontal profile of these things....when you consider how much
of the gas you use is expended overcoming air resistance, you begin to see why
the lower profile passenger car makes sense, and the boxlike SUV is the
loser.
6. Get around the naysayers like Park. I don't
personally know that much about LENR/CANR, but what I have seen leads me to
believe that, with so many people seeing something, that there is something
going on. If there is even a chance that it could lead to breakthroughs, then
it is truly insanity of a very high order to not investigate it immediately,
and seriously. What you don't know CAN hurt you, so let us strive to know all
we can about this phenomenon. It seems to me that if only a fraction of the
funding currently spent on conventional (hot) fusion research, or any of the
myriad other eaters of money were to be diverted to the serious study of
LENR/CANR, that we would make great steps forward. I also place my money on
the LENR/CANR guys precisely because they have had to do without funding for
so long: they have had to improvise and figure out ways to do things that they
could not afford to do any other way. In my experience, having to figure out
ways to make do with what you have is a great way to sharpen your intellect.
If this really works, and most importantly, can be made viable on the large
scale, you can have your hydrogen planes/cars, your EV's, your dirt-cheap home
heat for the winter, etc., with no problem at all. With so much to gain,
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance of success, then this research
MUST BE DONE.
Lastly, and to Jed in particular: I don't hold a
position on the idea of global warming. I think that there is insufficient
evidence that it is happening, or that if it is that it is being caused by our
actions. HOWEVER; I do believe that we should move away from pollutive and
limited fuel sources as quickly as possible, just as if there really were an
imminent threat of environmental collapse. Why? First, we can become self
reliant, and not be held prisoner by the whims of OPEC or the next big natural
disaster. Second, there is only so much oil to get, and if it runs out before
we switch over, then while I believe we can still pull ourselves back together
and switch to alternatives, it will be a living hell for a long time. If we
start now, this hell can be avoided. Third, regardless of the theory of global
warming, I think it is safe to say that heavy pollution is certainly not good
for the health of human beings. There is so much cancer nowadays, and there is
a definite connection there. Fourth, alternatives are not limited in the way
that oil/fossil fuels are. We would no longer be limited by the availability
of oil deposits and production quotas for said; if we want more power, we just
build more solar collector or satellites. This in turn will make energy
cheaper for the consumer. Five, China is fast becoming a major competitor with
the US for energy resources. If inexhaustible (well, for 4.5 billion more
years) energy sources become widely available, we might be able to stave off
an eventual war over resources. Jed, though I don't hold a position on global
warming, I am with you on your quest for the alternative energy economy and
for clean vehicles.
Me myself, this little minicrisis has scared me,
and I think it should scare everyone. I am looking into some methods for
improving the insulation in my residence, and for making some solar heat
collectors to augment my natural-gas furnace. I have decided that I am not
going to buy anything commercially manufactured. It will be all home made, in
hopes that if I get something which works well, others with low or middle
incomes like myself can make these systems for themselves, at low cost. I
don't know if any of this will work out, but I will never know if I do not
try. If nothing else, I will have learned, and have had a good time in the
attempt.
Sorry this was so lengthy, and I hope it has made
some sense...I am rather sick right now with a sinus infection, so for all I
know, this was the least coherent post I've ever made.
--Kyle
