Now here's a cool car
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Operation Distance Chart: It Doesn't Suck, It's 'Art'!
Next: Hamilton (OH) rolls out area's first 'speed van'
From: Grumpy AuContraire on 11 Apr 2010 21:59 E. Meyer wrote: > On 4/11/10 10:25 AM, in article > jcOdnX2Be9FOdVzWnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Grumpy AuContraire" > <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote: > >> Bob Willard wrote: >>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >>>> dgk wrote: >>>>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >>>>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >>>>> goal? >>>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will >>>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. >>>> It always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant >>>> interference entity. >>> It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While >>> most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the >>> private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or >>> indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and >>> computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let >>> me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on >>> computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn, >>> greatly pushed by gov't funding. >> Really??? >> >> Seems to me that the transistor came out of Bell Labs. > > To be totally correct about it, Bell labs invented the transistor, > Geophysical Systems Inc. bought the rights to manufacture it from Bell labs > and renamed the company from GSI to Texas Instruments. Now, whether or not > Bell labs did the research with Govt. investment is a whole other question. Good point. Back a zillion or so years ago, I did a couple of contracts for the technical support (sub)contractor for the Safeguard R&D program on Kwajalein. The project management was by Bell Labs and later I learned that they were told that they had to do this because they were the only entity that was capable of such a complex program. Imagine that... The guv'ment actually telling a business entity that they had to take a contract! And, it was up to Bell Labs to succeed with a minimum of interference which certainly is not the case today. The plus side is that since AT&T was in charge, benefits were good even for us lowly subcontractors... JT
From: Matthew Russotto on 13 Apr 2010 21:52 In article <42hrr5dl5t240hm3gqtvohp5p3ri82djr4(a)4ax.com>, dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote: > >Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >goal? That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one. If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and "deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous. >Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity >can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are impossible. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: dgk on 14 Apr 2010 08:37 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:52:10 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: >In article <42hrr5dl5t240hm3gqtvohp5p3ri82djr4(a)4ax.com>, >dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote: >> >>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >>goal? > >That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of >constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one. > >If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and >"deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on >the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery >with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous. > >>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity >>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. > >Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke >supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because >its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce >electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even >possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you >can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are >impossible. So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case of your NY reactor.
From: Philip Nasadowski on 14 Apr 2010 19:32 In article <fldbs59lra1j6q83qt4plklbti9ce1h56h(a)4ax.com>, dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote: > So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case > of your NY reactor. The water doesn't come out even close to boiling temperature. Con Ed wanted to put in cooling towers when the plant was built in the 60's (Units 2 and 3), but Riverkeeper opposed them because they'd spoil the view (not like Buchan's scenic - it's a shithole) In any case, NY's ruling affects virtually every power plant of any type, in the state. I'd love to see the owners just pack up and leave - IP going off line alone would make electric service in the area a nightmare (it's 1/3rd NYC's generating capacity). There's a number of other plants in the area of various sizes affected by this ruling, too. Most owner/operators are national - they can just go elsewhere, and nobody's proposing any new construction of useable size. Why bother, when the state's attitude is to drive everyone out.
From: Tegger on 14 Apr 2010 21:14
Philip Nasadowski <nasadowsk(a)usermale.com> wrote in news:nasadowsk- 546FC6.19322514042010(a)news.optonline.net: > > In any case, NY's ruling affects virtually every power plant of any > type, in the state. I'd love to see the owners just pack up and leave - You'd like to see Atlas shrug? -- Tegger |