On Tuesday 29 March 2005 13:59, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > >The biggest problem with charging stations would be lack of customers. I > >think most people would find it more convenient to recharge at home > >overnight, rather than interrupt their commute. > > In other words, charging stations would only be economically viable on > highways where people travel hundreds of miles from their houses and > offices, but you would see no charging stations in major cities. When a > third of gasoline cars are replaced by electric cars, the demand for > gasoline would fall, most gas stations would close, and you would soon see > no gasoline stations in major cities either. That would be an advantage, > not a problem. Gas stations are ugly. If most of them went out of business > that would force the rest of the gasoline vehicle fleet owners to switch > over to electricity, which would be a plus. > > I think this kind of transition could occur much faster than most people > realize. (I am not saying it will, but it could.) It would take 10 or 20 > years if government and industry got serious. Gasoline at $5 per gallon > would do the trick. > > On March 28, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggested that the > government should impose a tax on gasoline to keep the price at $4 per > gallon. See: "Geo-Greening by Example." That is an excellent idea but it > would never fly. Still, it is remarkable that serious newspapers are > suggesting such radical steps. Friedman wrote: "By doing nothing to lower > U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism > and strengthening the worst governments in the world." > > Friedman also advocated building nuclear power plants again. That may > happen. It is much more likely than the advent of a tax to raise the price > of gas to $4/gallon. I sense a groundswell of support for conventional > nuclear power in the national press. Unfortunately I have seen no reference > whatever in the press to cold fusion -- or hot fusion for that matter. > > - Jed
Once the anti nuclear leftovers from the maoist antiwar subversion campaign by the heirs of the old Comintern of the 1970's are mostly dead or quiet, and that is happening now as most of these were drug users and have had short lives; then the new atmosphere of nuclear common sense will have an even fairer chance at success. Price will undoubtedly drive the politics of the issue as energy is short everywhere. Like William F. Buckley said once about energy being fungible around the world, so it is today as well, as the laws of economics do not change very much. Only now we will need nuclear rockets as well. Chemical rockets have to low, far far too low a coefficient of performance to even be considered for even intra-system travel. We will have to come to terms with the idea of a nuclear primary booster.....or....good heavens....a nuclear shuttle of only one stage to orbit. Alternatively, JP Aerospace's idea, when they aren't busy making their main business of Pong-Sats, is to use solar electric dirigibles of great size to first ascend with a sturdy craft of about 1000 ft or so to a height of about 200,000 ft to a large transfer station (Dark Sky Station) about 6000-10000 feet in diameter, thence transfer cargo to a true space ascender that can be flimsier but must be larger to take advantage of what was left of the atmosphere before its solar electric thrusters can build up enough speed for orbital velocity. Another alternative is the mirror fusion engine for main power. It is powered by a nuclear reactor. If these things can get us to the moon where we can mine the tritium, then pure fusion mirror devices become feasible. In any case, the moon's resource of tritium will open up our system to us for exploration as it will be our fuel station for space craft for many years. Pure fusion devices will be far more efficient and far less polluting that any of the other alternatives available to us plausibly at present. Standing Bear
