Re: Citizenship silliness. Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd)

[Petro <petro@playboy.com>]

At 10:56 AM -0500 9/9/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>
>> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:03:25 -0500
>> From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
>> Subject: Re: Citizenship silliness.  Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd)
>
>> 	There already are several, the problem is the cannot be centralized
>> the way oil is.
>That's not really the problem...

	I'd say it is, but hell, I'm paranoid.

>
>> 	Alcohol is acceptable (and in some ways better) than gasoline for
>> cars and motorcycles, but anyone can set up a still and compete with RDS &
>> Standard.
>
>The problem with alcohol is that there isn't enough free land in order grow
>enough plant material to provide the necessary quantities without seriously
>restricting the amount of land available for actual foodstuffs and living
>space (unless you want everyone to move to Black Rock desert or live on the
>top of a mountain).

	There are lots of things you can make alcohol out of. Seaweed, etc.

	There would also be incentive to other countries to produce excess
for importation into the US.

>Alcohol is also much more of a fire hazard than gas. It burns hotter, isn't

	And what would you need to add to it to "color" the flame?

>put out by water spray easily, and burns invisibly (well all right in the
>near-UV).

	Put about 2% detergent (just about any grade will do) into that
"water spray", and the fire goes out quicker, and stays out longer.

>> A mix of solar
>Again not enough land to make it feasible, not to mention the low efficiency
>of even the best panels.

	There are plenty of unused roof tops here in Chicago bouncing free
energy off into the air.

>> wind
>Not enough places in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) where the
>wind blows with sufficient force 18 hours a day to make it economical.

	Again, there are a lot of tall buildings here where the wind is
constantly moving. Also, we have this large, flat, relatively undeveloped
area just to the east of chicago where the wind is constantly at least 10
m.p.h. (from (admittedly imperfect memory) 7 m.p.h. is necessary to run an
electric generator from a windmill) and where no one lives.

	It's called Lake Michigan.

>> coal
>Coal isn't an acceptable substitute, mainly because there isn't enough
>low-sulphur deposits in the world to supply the US, let alone the rest of
>the world. Plus it isn't renewable.

	No, but it is PART of the solution.

>> hydroelectric
>Not enough rivers with sufficient hydrodynamic head to make this work
>for the US let alone the rest of the planet.

	Again, PART of the solution.
>> nuclear
>
>I'll buck the general consensus because I like nuclear energy, however there
>is a single MAJOR caveat, we need fussion and not fission reactors to make
>it economical. The waste problem with fission reactors is enough to vote
>in the negative on them.

	The waste problem goes away of you build a decently stable launch
platform and drop the shit into the sun.

>> and other sources
>cop-out.

	No, it's an inclusive statment. It takes into account things like
your beloved Clathrate deposits, things like the possiblity of launching
"power sats" into orbit (altho I am not real clear on how the energy gets
back down, something about using microwaves <shrug>)

	Also, you ignored, or didn't see the "mix of" statement. Oil CAN be
replaced, and should be. There are plenty of ways to replace the energy
with something else, and there are ways--without modifying lifestyles all
that much--to reduce dependence on oil.

	No, don't look at me to be waving the Big Green Flag, I mean I'm
for clean air as much as the next guy, and I guess trees are kinda nice to
look at, but I'd like to see far more diversity in energy sources, and
investigation into more long term, renewable sources.

>The reality is that the clathrate deposits occur across the entire ocean.
>The existing Magnesium Nodule treaties could be extended to cover the
>countries that don't have coastlines. They are the first renewable,
>occurring in sufficient quantity, and with realizable and economicly
>feasible methods for mining, processing, and distributing to have been put
>on the table.

	Actually it looks like something that could be made in a factory.
Take a methane source (sewage, rotting plant matter) pump it into really
cold water under pressure, and blam.

>As to the gas and oil folk being against them, they're about the only ones
>with an existing infrastructure (ie extracting oil and gas from the sea
>floor) to take advantage of the source, implying that existing changes in
>the infrastructure would be minor.

	Depends on what you want it to replace. The one of the largest uses
of oil is in the transportation sector, and "they" have been pushing
Natural Gas there for years to little effect.

petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.