Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Eugen Leitl]

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

[Harmon Seaver]

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

[Bill Stewart]

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

[James A. Donald]

--
> 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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

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

[Neil Johnson]

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

[Jim Choate]

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

[Jim Choate]

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 R&D 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

[Howie Goodell]

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

[James A. Donald]

--
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

[James A. Donald]

--
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 R&D 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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Steve Schear]

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

[Harmon Seaver]

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

[Harmon Seaver]

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

[Steve Schear]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[B Peterson]

-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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Mike Rosing]

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

[Jim Choate]

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

[Eugen Leitl]

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 R&D 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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tim May]

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

[David Howe]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

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

[Tyler Durden]

Tim May wrote...

"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!""

That's what it came down to for me. In the 80s I swore I'd never buy some 
yuppie status symbol like a Mercedes, but after the Russians moved into my 
neighborhood (and I saw how they drive), I bought a gas-guzzling Mercedes 
SUV when my son was born. I mourned the loss of the environment and felt a 
little guilty, but in the end it came down to something far more basic than 
philosphy or whatever. (I might still be convincable that I did "something 
bad",  but I don't really give a crap.)

Indeed, after I squashed a family of four riding in a Honda, I stepped down 
from my Mercedes and noticed a tiny spatter of blood on my bumper: "You 
fucked up my Mercedes!" Is what I told them as their last few moments of 
life ebbed away

-TD








From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:38:11 -0800

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 cos

Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Bill Stewart]

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

[Bill Stewart]

At 03:13 PM 01/29/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:

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.


I haven't seen radical energy-efficiency products coming out of
German or French or British engineering companies either,
in spite of the funding possibilities available under Socialism.

(There have been some good wind-power things done in Scandinavia,
but their car companies seem to go for durable-and-safe or
sports-cars-instead-of-simple-sub-Volkswagens, and I suppose
they've done lots of things with building insulation or whatever,
but that's simple necessity up there...  Similarly, there's been
some good solar-energy work done in Israel, where it's warm and sunny
and surrounded by Arabs who may not always sell you oil.)

We've gotten much more efficiency gain out of the Japanese car companies.
I'm not sure how much of that benefited from government research funding
(their computer industry didn't accomplish much with it),
but a lot of it was from lighter-weight lower-cost cars,
which are not only a good match in crowded, poor cities,
just as Volkswagens were efficient, but it also benefited significantly
from less restrictive laws on car designs - the US has a huge amount
of regulation on car design ostensibly in the name of traffic safety
or consumer protection.


In the U.S., it really is not. Constitutionally, that is.
The government exists to do certain things, not to pick technology winners.


Not that that's bothered them much :-)

Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:25:07AM -0800, 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.)

   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. 

> 
> >The subsidies for corn ethanol are indicative of the problem with 
> >interfering in markets:
> >-- someone decided "corn good, oil bad!"

   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.


> >-- 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.
> 
   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.

  (snip)

-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tyler Durden]

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)."

Well, there's some truth here but a lot of oversimplification as well.
I'd argue that the US patent system (or at least the thoughtof it) had a lot 
to do with the ability of inventors to take risks, gather startup capital, 
and get a product rolling. There is first of all the perception that their 
"secret sauce" is to some extent protected (as are the time & $ 
investments), as well as the actual protection (litigation actually works 
once in a while, and the threat thereof has kept some from copying to soon 
and too closely). This environment has had a major effect on technological 
innovation.

That's not to say it can't happen in other environments, but it seems to 
unfold very differently in, say, China or the USSR (which actually has 
contributed lots of technological and scientific ideas to the world). But 
none of them have benefited $$$-wise (nor has the pace been nearly as fast) 
as in the US.

Meanwhile, regulations and governments can give some industries a head 
start, particularly if a "jungle" already holds a nice warm niche for the 
output of those industries. Thus Sematec helped US semiconductors to roar 
back from the brink of extinction, 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? The moon shots did apparently accelerate the 
development of semiconductors.

(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.)

The best technology does not always win. In fact, the concept of "best 
technology" is kinda shakey most of the time. There are sociological, 
political, and other factors than can alter the course of things for a 
while.

That said, the technological "survival of the fittest" notion seems to be a 
fairly constant undercurrent that re-asserts itself periodically as the 
various sociological ephemera come and go. Like Kuhn or Popper, these aren't 
the only drivers, but they are certainly one of the axes.

So the picking of technological winners is possible, but if the technology 
is actually a winner!

-TD








From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:08:08 -0800

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, 

Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tim May]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Declan McCullagh]

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

[Bill Stewart]

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

[James A. Donald]

--
On 29 Jan 2003 at 21:08, Tyler Durden wrote:
> That's not to say it can't happen in other environments, but
> it seems to unfold very differently in, say, China or the
> USSR (which actually has contributed lots of technological
> and scientific ideas to the world).

What little they have contributed has been entirely weapons
related.

 >But none of them have benefited $$$-wise (nor has the pace
> been nearly as fast) as in the US.
>
> Meanwhile, regulations and governments can give some
> industries a head start, particularly if a "jungle" already
> holds a nice warm niche for the output of those industries.
> Thus Sematec helped US semiconductors to roar back from the
> brink of extinction,

Sematec was a boondoggle and complete failure

 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.

> The moon shots did apparently accelerate the development of
> semiconductors.

No they did not.
>
> (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.)

We are switching to direct contact methods, which will be
cheaper.  Gutenburg instead of photocopying. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 VKCnpakdLzFyrcBpgv0iSDG+sVotQDZ4KYseulLm
 4ONCsZY4ADmP8p1dtPtY0srxJ4ZtKXxsplnujQ1HU

Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Steve Schear]

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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tim May]

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: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Eric Cordian]

Time writes:

> "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.

Uh, no.  I followed science very closely during the Eisenhower
administration, and I remember no mention of a "National Mechanical Brain"
project.

Tim is likely spoofing us again.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

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?


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tim May]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Bill Frantz]

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

[Harmon Seaver]

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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Mike Rosing]

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."

And I bet an alcohol fueled model airplane engine gets 1000 mpg.  It
just can't lift a gallon!

We have put a lot of research money into fuel cells, and the pay off is
not in auto's, it's in battery replacement.  Energy density and economics
are both important, as is infrastructure and politics.  I'll be climbing
on my bicycle in a few minutes to ride home in the snow - it uses regular
meat and potatoes for fuel :-)  But not many people can deal with the
risks.

If we make it a law that everyone rides their bike to work so we can use
the gasoline to conquer the world, Bush might get a second term.

But let's hope not.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tim May]

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

[Tim May]

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: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Jamie Lawrence]

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: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Eric Cordian]

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"

Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Bill Frantz]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Eugen Leitl]

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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tyler Durden]

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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Harmon Seaver]

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: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tim May]

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: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Mike Rosing]

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

[Michael Cardenas]

How about this news?

Last night in the State of the Union address, Bush repeated the lie
that Iraq is creating nuclear weapons, stating the evidence of the
aluminum tubes purchased, which he claimed were used to enrich
uranium.

These remarks were made despite the fact, discussed here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57632-2003Jan28.html

that the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Monday stated
clearly that the tubes "cannot be used directly for [uranium]
enrichment."

So, Bush is either illiterate or just flat out lying, once again.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:00:01PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central
> >Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop
> >a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat
> >information in a single location. Our government must have the very best
> >information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people
> >are in the right places to protect our citizens.

--
michael cardenas   | lead software engineer, lindows.com
hyperpoem.net  | GNU/Linux software developer
people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted email preferred

Listening to: KPFA-FM - Berkeley, CA

"Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow."
- Oscar Wilde

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Tyler Durden]

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

[DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 07:53 PM 1/29/03 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>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...

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?

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.

---
There are about 50 microcomputers controlling about 70 electric motors
in
a high end car --ca 2002

RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power

[Eugen Leitl]

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

[Morlock Elloi]

> "...and this year, for the first time, every American will be weighed, and
> measured,  and given a free yearly Rabies shot."

"From now on, you will be wearing your underwear outside, so that we can check
it's clean."

=
end
(of original message)

Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re: the news from bush's speech

[Mike Rosing]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Declan McCullagh quoted Bush:

> >  And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central
> > Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop
> > a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat
> > information in a single location. Our government must have the very best
> > information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people
> > are in the right places to protect our citizens.

Yeah, like Ames, Hanson and Pollard.  Definitly the right people in the
right places.

A friend of mine had a sign in his office that said "I can't tell if the
world is run by smart men bluffing or idiots who mean it."  I think the
latter is pretty obvious in this case.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

the news from bush's speech

[Declan McCullagh]

 And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central 
Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop 
a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat 
information in a single location. Our government must have the very best 
information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people 
are in the right places to protect our citizens.

RE: the news from bush's speech

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 8:37 PM -0800 on 1/28/03, Blanc wrote:


> and this year, for the first time, every American will be weighed

Check...



Besides, you only need rabies every once in a while...

:-).

Cheers,
RAH


-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

RE: the news from bush's speech

[Blanc]

Declan quotes:

>>  And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central
>> Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense
>> to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and
>> analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government
>> must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to
>> make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our
citizens.



"...and this year, for the first time, every American will be weighed, and
measured,  and given a free yearly Rabies shot."


  ..
Blanc

Re: the news from bush's speech

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 06:00  PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:


 And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central 
Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to 
develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze 
all threat information in a single location. Our government must have 
the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure 
the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens.




The _real_ news was, of course, that no one delivered the Sato Solution 
to that den of statists.

Granted, delivering a fully-loaded 767 through the roof of the Capitol 
dome has become harder than it was when Clancy first proposed it 
(ironically, Clancy remained a vaunted consultant while those on 
newsgroups who speculated similarly reportedly got visits from the SS). 
But each year I keep hoping that my CNN coverage will suddenly go blank 
and Aaron Brown and Judy Woodruff will say "We seem to have lost 
communcation with the Capitol...Judy, what's that bright orange glow 
over towards the Capitol?"

Of course, a true nest-cleaning detonation would probably take out most 
of Crystal City as well, so Aaron, Lou, Dan, Peter, and Oprah would 
probably be "having the vapors."

There's always next year...



--Tim May
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, 
my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists."  --John 
Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General