Hmmm. I could read all that, but I think maybe I'll wait for the movie.

: )
Cya,
Robert

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rodgers" <inua@CHARTER.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Electrical pollution?

> Since all energy of every form on this planet originates from the sun,
> the ultimate energy solution is to emulate some form of solar energy.
> That means atomic energy.
>
> Around 1986 or so, an article appeared in (I think) Popular Science
> Magazine about backyard atomic power plants that ever home could have,
> These were completely sealed, self contained units that would completely
> power a home for all it's needs plus extra power to be fed back to the
> public power grid. Such a home power plant was totally adequate to
> supply charging power for electric cars. These power units could run a
> single home for 20 years before having to deal with spent fuel cells. No
> unit costs were given as I recall, but the feasibility of such units was
> brought fourth as well as the expression of the availability of the
> technology. It was very interesting to note that I was never able to
> read anything more about this subject anywhere.
>
>
> Such units would solve the oil dependency which is a finite supply. And
> that finite supply is the basis of our dilemma. Our civilization is tied
> to that oil for energy. It is a resource we need so survive at present,
> and one we don't have enough of but other parts of the world do. We are
> competing with the rest of the world for that natural resource - that
> energy we must have to survive as a nation, and we as individuals in
> that nation. I know if I can get gasoline, then I can't drive the
> distance to work. If I can't work my job. If I don't work I can't get
> paid. If I can't get paid I can buy food. If I have no food, then I
> starve to death. This is the same principle as what the wild beasts of
> the earth live on. Every animal on the planet is going to get it's
> energy for it's own life from someone else. It does so by killing and
> eating another creature to get the other creatures life energy for it's
> own and it's offspring. Same with us. Little difference -- EXCEPT - we
> have oil in the equation. And without it, we will be in big do-do in a
> hurry. Civilization would collapse, chaos would reign, and thousands -
> millions - would die of starvation.
>
> Wars are most often fought over resources, and oil is no exception.
> Nations rise and fall on resource availability, consumption, and
> ultimately - destruction or loss. Back in the 1800's and early part of
> the 20th century, France was in big trouble. Their only major energy
> resource was coal, and it was all used up nationwide. They had no
> significant alternative energy supply. Then came the atomic bomb, then
> the development of Atomic Power Plants. Atomic Power is what saved the
> French butt!! They set about studying the various kinds of atomic power
> plants in the world, settled on one type, and developed it to a very
> fine degree, and built them all over. A single type, repeated many
> times. Uniformity, a single standard. An operator can go from one to
> another and expect to find things exactly the same in each. This ensures
> a measure of safety. France now has power for the nation, and excess
> power to sell to the European power grid. And, correct me if I am wrong,
> they have never had an atomic accident at any of those plants.
>
> While France is enjoying it's electric power. It is still using oil.
> It's vehicles use oil for energy. BUT, France has the capacity in place
> now to switch over to alternative fuels. WE don't.
>
> War's over resources. It's coming. In Mexico today, a war of sorts is
> already taking place. A poor country, lots of poverty, a scramble for
> the people to leave their nation, get out from under the yoke of their
> government and find a better living elsewhere. What is the problem
> there? Two issues - resources and government. Every wonder why we are
> having a "Browning of America" (I'm not trying to make this a racial
> issue). Why the European immigration to America has slowed to a trickle
> while waves of immigrants from Mexico and Pacific Rim countries are
> coming to these shores? It has to do with resources and the ability or
> lack thereof to participate in the riches of their own nations. In the
> early days of America European immigrants came here to these wild shores
> because things were so screwed up in their own countries they had no
> place to go, no land, no wealth, nothing. Life was very hard. There were
> times when one might be put in jail for some infraction or debt and stay
> until death simply because there was no one to pay he debt. So the poor
> Eruos, many indenturing themselves for 7 to 15 years, just to get a
> chance to leave Europe for a chance at a better life. The wealthy who
> owned the resources stayed at home. The wealthy were extracting their
> wealth by way of the poor, and their wealth insulated them from the
> poverty of the rest of the people. The misery was rampant, and the poor
> worked to escape the situation.
>
> Today, the peoples of Europe have a greater equity and share in the
> benefits of the larger community. They have no reason nor desire to
> leave. This is not true of Mexico, some South American and some Pacific
> Rim Countries. And their immigration is heavily dependent on the drive
> for opportunity, and opportunity is based on resources, ultimately. Wo
> what is happening in Mexico to drive people across our borders in ever
> increasing numbers. Over-population, lack of resources, poverty, lack of
> opportunity to improve their lives. Why all this. Many factors -
> inadequate birth control (Mexico is largely a Catholic nation - and
> birth control is anathema to them) so the population continues to
> increase. Because of the large numbers of people, resources are being
> used up at an alarming rate. The wealthy there are well insulated from
> the poverty stricken. and the poor - like the early Euros, are desperate
> to find a better life. So they flood into this country, increasing the
> demand on our services, resources, etc, and reducing our quality of life
> in the process. Like a plague of rats that get into the farmers crops
> and consume them, they reduce the farmers ability to take care of his
> own, the hoards from Mexico are doing the same to the rest of this
> country. I don't like the fact that my government forces me to pay taxes
> - take money from me that would otherwise go to supporting my own
> family- and willingly gives it over to programs to support hoards of
> foreigners fleeing their land because things are so bad there.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of sympathy for those that live
> in such places and their struggles. And I really don't mind sharing a
> bit to help my fellow human beings. I really couldn't live with myself
> otherwise. But I don't like the way my government manages the matter.
> But worse, I see a dreadful time coming in this nation if things don't
> change, when the rats have eaten all the grain, and they are still
> reproducing themselves in uncontrolled numbers.
>
> How does all this tie back to Vanagons and oil??? It's a matter of
> resources, and finding alternatives. My Vanagon runs on gasoline. Though
> there are a few other fuels available - gasohol, diesel, bio-diesel,
> etc, none are as efficient as gasoline at this point. Ceramic engines
> that can stand extreme temperatures using other fuels with more
> calories/gram may be on the horizon but they are not here now. Oil
> products are. Yet we have a shortage in this country. And we compete
> with the world for it, and that competition is growing, and it is
> costing us more and more. I believe we will soon reach a point where use
> of oil is not economically sustainable, and that is tied directly to the
> environment and the protection of all natural resources. If the global
> warming we are currently experiencing is in fact connected to
> environmental pollution by CO2, the use of oil is not economically
> sustainable. It is insane to continue down the same path when
> destruction is at the end of the path. The ultimate end of the global
> warming trend - if it continues to the point of melting the polar ice
> caps - it a total alteration of the worlds shorelines and agriculture
> among other things, and that will result in famine of unbelievable
> scale, and then to wars. . So, we had better get a grip, and find better
> ways, and to hell with corporate profits. But a warning. Those whose
> profits are made on the investments is such things as the oil industry -
> are insulated for a time, and only for a time - from the misery that
> will accompany the destruction of the environment. Eventually they to,
> will pay a price for their greed. They can afford less profits for the
> purpose of helping the environment for the sake of us all. They can also
> afford less profits for equity of the people in the resources.
>
> It is amazing how few people today - especially in the USA - who have
> any concept of the fact that our very existence is tied directly and
> indirectly to plant life - both oceanic and land. And if the
> environmental destruction does not come to a halt, we as a species are
> in deep do-do. If we ever have a major break in the food chain, then we
> are going to have a catastrophe that will make the asteroid destruction
> of the dinosaurs look like a picnic.
>
> Safe, environmentally friendly, atomic power is ultimately the answer.
>
> Everyone gets really amped up over the ideal of atomic power or energy.
> Too dangerous they say. Hmmm. I had a heated debate with my banker one
> day over something I wanted to do. He pointedly told me he had been
> informed that the material I wanted to use in my project was "dangerous"
> and he couldn't loan with that condition. I was equally pointed, as
> asked him if he would deliberately place his family in the presence of a
> dangerous substance that has killed people, injured people, burned down
> houses, etc. He replied "Of course not". I said "Of course you do. You
> have natural gas in your home, and it has burned down more homes and
> burned and killed more people than I can count, yet you expose your
> family to it daily.!!" The point was conceded. I also said "You
> transport your family in your car which tank is filled with gasoline,
> and highly flammable liquid, capable of exploding!" And my point was
> conceded. I also said the many things are dangerous, but highly useful
> when individuals are properly trained and the material properly handled
> and utilized. Natural gas, Propane, Chlorine gas, Gasoline, etc, etc,
> etc, etc. So to can atomic energy.
>
> OK, Rant over.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> John Rodgers
> 88 GL Driver
>
> jimt wrote:
>
>>On 1/7/05 7:29 PM, "Jim Felder" <felder@KNOLOGY.NET> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Out here in the west ... The land of the coal fired power plants where
>>>>even
>>>>the hoover dam doesn�t put out enough hydro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I picked up an August 2004 Fortune in the Dr.'s office this summer and
>>>read an interesting article about weaning our nation from oil. The
>>>author stated that the argument that more efficient electric motors
>>>would raise the cost of home appliances was counter-illustrated by an
>>>improvement made to refrigerator motors in the 1970s. Refrigerators, he
>>>went on to say (hope I remember this accurately) cost less now in real
>>>dollars than they did then, not to mention adjusted dollars, and that
>>>the savings in electricity from that improvement was equal to the
>>>annual output of the hoover dam.
>>>
>>>Just thought you'd like to know!
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You probably got it right..  A breakthrough in refridgerator  compressor
>>technology in the early 70s that started to see production in late 70s and
>>on to current mods is still hailed as one of the biggest breakthroughs in
>>appliance technology.  Further changes in the late 80s made it even
>>better.
>>An article I saw recently gave figures showing the same fridge using a
>>value
>>of 100 in early 1970s used 70 to 80 in the late 70s and into the 80s with
>>the newest high power user fridges still in the 65 ranking against the
>>early
>>70s fridge.  That is definitely a power saving issue. A sears store in 78
>>had a display in the store with a meter connected to a 2 year old model
>>and
>>a meter connected to their newest model of the same size fridge.  Almost
>>unbelievable difference in the meters.  That kenmore is still sitting in
>>my
>>kitchen in use.  Longest lived appliance I have ever purchased.
>>
>>����������������������������������������
>>jimt
>>Planned insanity is best.
>>Remember that sanity is optional.
>>http://www.tactical-bus.info (tech info)
>>http://www.westydriver.com
>>
>>
>>
>>