On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:47:08 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> America has alot of problems that can be turned around with a new
>>>>> government, but one thing America does well is commercialize new
>>>>> technologies where wealth is truly created.
>
>>> Intellectual property is our only advantage and since the Chinese
>>> don't honor IP then even that is questionable.
>
>> Our big advantage is the natural resources we have per capita. That has
>> always been our advantage and it will hopefully remain so.
>
> A lot of S. American and African countries have plenty of resources so
> obviously that isn't the only factor.
No. They do not have the natural resources per capita that the USA has.
And they do not have the same economic morality. The economic morality
also enters the picture. But the resources must be there.
>>>> The "brick wall" is the fact of overpopulation. China does not have
>>>> adequate resources for its people to live an American life style.
>
>>> They can buy all the coal, oil and food they need as long as they
>>> continue to, as both you and Buffet suggest, work 16 hours/day.
>
>> But that is the point. It is seen over and over again. The nations that
>> have less natural resources per capita have a lower standard of living.
>> This is economic certainty that happens due to land rent.
>
> I don't really care if they never reach our [recent past] lifestyle.
I don't either. I only care about my/our life style.
> The fact is they'll be able to buy up the oil and drag us down to
> their level.
We will abandon oil much faster than they and that will be to our
advantage.
>>> This is grounds for another thread: 15 years from now world
>>> production of oil will be maybe 50%% of what it is today and India and
>>> China will be getting as much of it as the U. S.
>
>> That will be irrelevant in 15 years because the world's energy will not be
>> coming from oil.
>
> Where's it going to be coming from?
Solar and nuclear just as it does now. The oil is just solar that was
trapped a long time ago. It is a piggy bank we have been robbing and it
is not sustainable. We, in the USA, can get along with renewable energy
and generally retain our current lifestyle if we conserve just a little.
Overpopulated societies cannot rise much above where they are without
cutting their populations. This precludes nuclear. I do not know what
happens when _SAFE_ nuclear power enters the picture. It will probably
make a huge difference. But it will probably produce the same fascism we
have with oil. It is a means to centralize power.
> That would require such a massive infrastructure change that the WWII
> effort would look like a picnic.
The conversion to algae based biofuels is not a massive alteration to
current infrastructure. The biofuels will then produce hybrids and
eventually we will see all electric _cars_. The heavy stuff will still
be biodiesel. The algae based biofuels are actually solar. The lipids
and the liquid fuel are the batteries. Holds a charge for a long long time :)
> Or is it even going to be coming at all?
All of this assumes an intelligent government as opposed to the fascist
pigs.
> Ever wonder why Congress doesn't seem to be doing anything? They are
> almost silent. They might already be thinking it is already hopeless
> and are thinking about saving their own skins.
They will be looking at market speculation on oil for a while as they
should. They will not be allowed to "run out the clock". The situation
is too dire.
> At a minimum they don't seem to really care.
The Republicans will be losing their seats. The Democrats will have an
opportunity to strike a blow for democracy and representative government.
It remains to be seen if they will do so or if they will turn to fascism
as well. Will they abuse the circumstances to build a socialist "central
committee" empire or will they take advantage of this rejection of
fascism to return control to the people.
>>> In other words, we'll be living on < 1/6th the fuel we currently use.
>
>> Do not confuse oil and fuel. These are not the same thing at all.
>> Fuel is a lot more than just oil. Most fuel will not be from crude
>> oil in the very near future.
>
> It might not be coming at all.
Algae based biofuels, wind, and direct solar are the proper short term
solutions address to the energy problem. Drilling more oil wells is not.
Nuclear will be the long term solution. Whether that solution is fascist
will depend on the ability of democracy to protect itself from too much
centralization of power. So far the historical examples have not been
very encouraging:
http://Thity-Thousand.org
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>>>> The
>>>> Japanese seem to have developed an adequate life style even though
>>>> they want for resources. But they work harder then we do and they
>>>> live in very cramped conditions. The "quality of life" is not so
>>>> good and I have never met a Japanese person that wants to go back to
>>>> Japan.
>>
>>> I've never met one who wanted to stay in the U. S. They abhor
>>> American vices.
>
>> I guess we know different Japanese folks..... But I know I do not
>> want to live like a bee in hive.
>
> Me neither but it may be the only way to go.
>
>>>> The Unites States
>>>> has a very serious problem with oil, but so does China. The
>>>> difference is that the United States, once freed from the oil
>>>> dependency, will kick ass as far as life style and quality of life.
>
>>> Sounds pretty iffy.
>
>> It is natural resource per capita every time. It is land rent.
>
> The Dutch do OK with hardly any land.
What does "OK" mean to you. I know what it means to most people. One of
the primary things is a satisfaction with your government. These people
have a parliamentary system with each member of the lower house
representing 111K people. They do not have a TwoParty in which each
representative represents 700 thousand people such that the
oligarchy decides who will run for office. The place is _NOT_
overpopulated like Japan, China, and India. The voice of the people in
their government seems to account for a lot of "OK". Quality of life seems
to track level of democracy, even while living standard may track inverse
rents.
>>> I don't think McCain's $300 M battery prize will do the trick.
>
>>> $300 billion is needed in R & D just to get started.
>
> Insane McCain is off by 3 orders of magnitude! At least Hillary was in
> the ballpark with 50 billion.
>
>> Where do you get the energy to charge the battery?
>
>
www.stirlingenergy.com
>
>
www.nanosolar.com
>
> nukes even.
>
> Storage is the real problem, not generation. That's why algae diesel is
> so attractive.
>
> While we're on transportation how big [box size] of an engine would be
> practically feasible on a semi rig?
I do not know how big. But the problem is current infrastructure again.
It is very difficult to back a 53 foot trailer to the old docks that were
built for 45 foot trailers. It is easier with a sorter tractor. The
engine size is about maxed right now. Any larger and the tractor is
too big and you can't back the trailer to the dock.
> We could get up to 35%% better mpg with low pressure ratio recuperated
> but the engine will be 3X larger.
The long stuff (distance) is going on the train anyway. No way to avoid
it. Maybe it will be all day cab (no sleeper) and then you can use a
bigger engine. I wouldn't hold my breath.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
