AudioRoundTable.com: Tower » America's Fuel Program

Home » xyzzy » Tower » America's Fuel Program

Show: Today's Messages :: Navigator :: Polls
E-mail to friend

Re: relocating [message #54237 is a reply to message #54233]

Tue, 05 April 2005 07:26

Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (13th Degree)

Haven't seen any mention of the huge SUV totems wandering the streets burning up all that precious fuel we want to conserve. There seems to be a pervading myth about the space program and the supposed massive effort made back then to coordinate across all lines of government to accomplish dominance of the skies. If you look at the history, there was much resistance to spending programs in congress and in fact the total outlay is much smaller than would be expected. We just remmember as kids watching the launches with awe and assume this was a concerted effort by concerned and scientifically aware citizenry approving any spending that NASA asked for. Not true.
And now you have schools trying to teach creationism and universities filled with cockeyed marxists and bored students. If there is a serious effort to create new energy sources it won't be done in this country; there is too much money involved in perpetuating the status quo. And now the money has run out while we prop up foriegn countries where we need their oil. What is the percentage in spending on research?
Suburbs? The highest growth rates are in regions where there is no water; Vegas,Pheonix,Florida. It is not an oil shortage that will get us, it is water.

Report message to a moderator

Re: America's Fuel Program [message #54238 is a reply to message #54235]

Tue, 05 April 2005 07:45

Dean Kukral
Messages: 177
Registered: May 2009

Master

I am talking about nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission, although I would not rule that out as a short-term help.

I **think** that nuclear fusion could be made clean, but don't know enough about the physics of that to be certain.

One of the potential problems with these gigantic plants is that they cost billions of dollars, so if someone screws up in the design or construction there is a strong desire to cover it up and to bribe the inspector. With billions at stake, a million-dollar bribe seems quite reasonable and very difficult to turn down. Perhaps I am just being silly.

Report message to a moderator

Re: relocating [message #54239 is a reply to message #54237]

Tue, 05 April 2005 11:53

Wayne Parham
Messages: 18793
Registered: January 2001

Illuminati (33rd Degree)

I have no doubt there was a lot of debate, and that there was tremendous resistance to spending money on space exploration in the 1960's. But in spite of that, we still landed a man on the moon in less than a decade. And that with engineers using slide rules and primitive computers, no less.

Report message to a moderator

Re: relocating [message #54240 is a reply to message #54239]

Tue, 05 April 2005 12:52

Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (13th Degree)

Thats a fact but remmember they burned up.. how many rockets in the process? As well as the fact that rocketry was born in the early 50's; therefor, I would offer there was a twenty year period of trial and error.
There doesn't seem to be a debate really; we needed to protect the skies from the Russians and driven by the threat of Sputnik and their obvious success we disregarded failure and pushed through until things worked and learned by trial and error how to get up there. As soon as Armstrong landed that was the cut-off point for space funding. Soon as the powers that be realised there was no financial benefit to space exploration they cut the budget to the bone and therein lies my point.
The price of oil will rise until it becomes financially prudent to excersize any and all methods to retrieve it from the ground; shale oil, natural gas; you probably know more about this than I do. There will be no government mandated conservation except as token measures designed to placate the environmentalists.
I have no personal stake in this; whatever the price becomes I will have to pay it; and if I resort to alternative methods of energy production on my property; they will find a way to tax it.
Let me ask you; how do you envision a national approach to finding better energy production methods be implemented? Should the government create a public energy policy with laws and ordinances dictating how and what to do or what we will be allowed to do?
They tried energy subsidies in the 70's and they were abused by the very people in charge now.
Vouchers for conservation? I'm curious. This is a serious subject worthy of reasoned debate. Since any programs must be taxpayer funded; who should pay?

Report message to a moderator

Re: relocating [message #54241 is a reply to message #54240]

Tue, 05 April 2005 16:44

Wayne Parham
Messages: 18793
Registered: January 2001

Illuminati (33rd Degree)

All good questions. I'm usually one for free enterprise, but I could see tax dollars spent for R&D. The resulting technologies could filter out from the public sector into the private sector, similarly to the way aerospace and communications technologies sprung forth from the space program.

Report message to a moderator

Re: relocating [message #54242 is a reply to message #54241]

Tue, 05 April 2005 18:41

Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (13th Degree)

Well Wayne; thats another huge ball of wax. Probably too much for a forum topic. I firmly believe in the maxim; follow the money. I have never seen it to fail.
I don't believe that the trickle down effect would work. The space program was a one shot deal that will not happen again due to many factors of time and place.
Who would own these taxpayer funded discoveries?
Today in the news the state of Connecticut and two other states are suing the federal govt. for the complete abandonement of funding for the mandated No Child Left Behind Act. So do we trust them to follow through on anything that isn't revenue producing?

Report message to a moderator

Re: relocating [message #54243 is a reply to message #54242]

Wed, 06 April 2005 09:12

Wayne Parham
Messages: 18793
Registered: January 2001

Illuminati (33rd Degree)

You know, you're probably right.

Report message to a moderator

Re: relocating [message #54244 is a reply to message #54243]

Wed, 06 April 2005 09:35

Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (13th Degree)

Thanks for the vote of confidence but in these matters I don't think there is a right or wrong; just opinions built on debate and experience and a willingness to listen to the other side without prejudice;.. of course until you are convinced they're coniving to promote personal gain.

Report message to a moderator

No need for alternative fuel. [message #54245 is a reply to message #54227]

Tue, 12 April 2005 17:08

GarMan
Messages: 960
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (2nd Degree)

Take a look at the Toyota Echo and Golf Turbo Diesel. Two mass produced cars that provides excellent mileage, even compared to hybrids. And developed without massive R&D support from government. Image what we can do if we take a serious attempt at increasing efficiency of oil burning engines. Unfortunately, we haven't and it doesn't look like we will in the short term.

Serveral things are working against efficiency improves in oil burning cars. It's not sexy like alternative fuel. People like to have more power under the hood than they need. People like their cars to be big and heavy.

Report message to a moderator

Re: No need for alternative fuel. [message #54246 is a reply to message #54245]

Tue, 12 April 2005 19:46

Dean Kukral
Messages: 177
Registered: May 2009

Master

More things run on fuel than cars!

Like factories, stores, homes, farms, etc.

And virtually every fuel source we have is polluting, except hydroelectric. If we could make an efficient solar panel, that would be great! But most of the stuff we have uses up more fuel to produce than its worth. Government subsidies keep them afloat.

But, no need for alternate fuel?????

Wayne is right!! We need a Space-Program level search for alternate fuels! Now is already too late.

Report message to a moderator