I agree. One of the problems is that the prognosticators have kept saying for almost 100 years that we would run out of energy reserves within 20 years several times. However, every time, new discoveries and new technologies keep pushing back the date at which we will run out of nonrenewable resources. Same with food. If we went back to a totally organically grown food source, even with farm and land management we'd have to fist kill 2/3rds of the world's people just to feed the remainder. But technology has enabled us to at least make it in ever increasing quantities per acre so we have enough to feed everyone, even if for a significant percentage of the earth's population it never gets to them. I'd worry more about the destruction of the planet's major source of oxygen, the rain forests of the world, before I'd worry about other factors. Kent Gittings
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT ot OT Re: SUV's - was: Illegal Street Photography? I agree that NASA does research, but what portion of their government-controlled budget is devoted to solar? Now a days it seems like most spacecraft are made with off-the-shelf parts to keep costs down instead of there being a lot of R&D. The "quick return" is the "attitude" I was alluding to. It's a short versus long term view. Let's make money quick, even if it wrecks the planet. Lawmakers will decide not to invest in alternative energy as long as they are stockholders and board members of oil companies and auto manufacturers. As far as efficiency, I suspect it could be vastly improved by technologies and methods not yet envisioned and definitely not budgeted for. Sierra, well they're Sierra. A respectable organization, no doubt, but maybe fanatical in some cases. Tom C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Gittings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 7:27 AM Subject: RE: OT ot OT Re: SUV's - was: Illegal Street Photography? > Actually the reason is business. Without a guaranteed quick return only the > solar energy companies like Solarex can make a profit off the stuff. And > don't think that pouring more R & D dollars will get the efficiency much > over the low percentage conversions now available. NASA pays for extensive > research and engineering projects in that area as space is still the number > one priority for it. > Not to mention the Sierra Club would most likely sue to keep all the solar > panels from covering all the acreage you would need to make it work. Fusion > would be a better solution so instead of trying to harness a small > percentage of the sun's fusion it would be better just to do it here. Would > save the large areas we'd have to chop down to cover with solar panels. > My vote is to get all the commuters off the road into some kind of mass > transit so those of us who enjoy high performance driving can have the roads > all to ourselves. > Kent Gittings - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
