NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/environm/14815

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 10.3 KB | 233 lines

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14815 soc.culture.usa:10069
Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!quake!brian
From: [e-mail] (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Quake Public Access
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:38:59 GMT
Lines: 221

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Holly Silva) writes:
>[e-mail] (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>[e-mail] (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Michael Smith) writes...

>>>>     Car-dependency is the symptom; suburban sprawl is the
>>>>underlying pathology. (There is, to be sure, something of a
>>>>chicken-and-egg question on the historical level.)

>>Actually, I don't think that cars are the best way of getting around...far
>>better than some stupid government-transit system.  I think most people
>>racognize this since they volunatrily choose to buy cars while the government
>>has to forcce people into trains.

>        Uh, hunh. Yoder's babbling again. Exactly where and how does
>any government in America 'force people into trains'?

Well, I live in Los Angeles and there are all kinds of incredibly stupid
things going on to try to make it more difficult to drive here (such
as intentional de-synchronization of traffic lights, slower speed limits,
higher taxes on cars, mandatory car pooling programs for businesses,
etc.).  The government is also forcing us to pay for initially, and then
subsidize the operation of them.

>By taking away
>tax monies from the (heavily subsidized) American highways and re-direct-
>ing them into public transit?

Well, I live in such a place.  Why should any tax monies be re-directed for
any kind of transportation systems?  Why should I pay for your transportation?
Why should you pay for mine?

>I've yet to live anyplace where this is occurring.

Where have you lived?  MOST places I have lived have done this.

>>>>     What has to be discouraged is car *ownership*; use will follow.

>>Why can't you mind your own business and stop trying to make people's
>>lives more miserable?  I LIKE my car, I don't care what you think.

>        Well this is glaringly apparent. Unfortunately the world and the
>net are full of people like me, who don't care what you think and who
>don't have any particular affection for your car, either in the abstract
>or when it's ten feet ahead of them on the freeway.

Indeed, you apparently have no regard for my rights, my property,
or me in general.  Your rejection of my rights ought to entail that
you see no reason why I should respect yours either, right?

I don╒t care whether you drive a car, ride a bike, or stay home in bed.
All I care about is whether you start forcing your views on me against
my will.  (It╒s particularly bad since your outlook is so irrational.)

>        Given the extent to which our present car-dependent society is a
>product of the sort of social engineering you so abhor, your underlying
>premise regarding the evils of pro-active gov't. is especially weak.

>>>Are there no realistic ideas for a mode of transportation which caters to the
>>>individual while avoiding serious environmental harm?

>>Well, modern internal combustion cars fit this bill quite well.

>        No it does not. It creates a considerable, well-measured pollution
>problem.

Really?  What problem?  How does this compare to the benefits of IC cars?

>Conceivably this problem can be ameliorated with the adoption of
>clean-burning fuels (i.e. compressed natural gas or ethanol), but some
>degree of pollution is inevitable with this system.

Oh come on, I live in the city with the worst pollution in the country (Los Angeles)
and I see very little real impact from the air pollution here in general, and much
of what does exist is not from cars.

I╒ll tell you what.  I╒d rather have the current levels of pollution here in LA and
keep my car rather than give it up and have the air quality of Kansas and
ride a train.

>>>Even solar cars have serious costs (mining, production, etc.).

>>They also don't work in any practical way.  Why do you thing that fuel is
>>such a terribly important issue?

>        How about: Because fuel costs constitute ~60% of our annual
>trade deficit,

Oh come now, that╒s a silly statistic.   Besides, what╒s wrong with a trade
deficit?  Don;t you like international trade?  Do you hate foreigners
so much you don╒t want to see any of them make a profit?

>and the bulk of these costs are related to the cost of
>powering motor vehicles. Because burning gasoline in such vast amounts
>creates significant, measureable pollution which reduces the quality of
>life in most metropoleis.

Well, I live in Los Angeles and air pollution doesn╒t reduce the quality of
my life in any substantial way.  Losing an hour or two in transportation
time each day (and being shoe horned into some transit official╒s
idea of when I shoudl travel and to where) would be a SEVERE reduction
in my quality of life.

Even if I did want to ride trains all around, it should me MY choice, not
some government official╒s choice.

>Because this intense dependence on oil has
>force the US to engage in warfare, and adopt a foreign policy towards
>the oil-rich nations which is not in the long-term, over-all best
>interst of the nation.

As I see it, there have been a lot of mistakes made in US middle
eastern policy (in particular, not sending in the marines when the
american wells were nationalized years ago), but you can hardly
blame the automobile for poor moral, political, and military policy
on the part of the government.

Perhaps you would like to blame American involvement in WWII
on American love of French wines?

>Because as individuals and as a nation we are
>paying immense 'hiden costs' for every gallon of fuel that goes into
>out cars.

Among them are taxes which are being redistributed to non-
automotive things (like public transit).  Actually, I╒m in favor of having
car drivers pay for the cost of maintaining the roads etc.  Just as I╒m in
favor of having train riders pay for their own costs as well.

>>>What I believe is probable, however, is that the costs of
>>>technology such as solar and zero-emission vehicles will be deemed acceptable.

>>I suggest you consult any introductory physics text and do a few back of the
>>envelope calculations.  Solar-powered cars make absolutely no sense and
>>never will.  You can't change the laws of physics.

>        No he can't change the laws of physics, but there are no a priori
>reasons why solar technology might not some day provide functional and
>viable personal transportation.

The low energy density of solar radiation and it╒s intermitent nature make
it an extrordinarily bad source of energy for transportation.  The characteristics
one should look for in a transportation system are compactness, fast
conversion to motion, long range, and reliable availability. Solar power
fails all of these, and for reasons which cannot be changed by
technological innovation.

>Your barrage of questions above [now
>deleted] constitute a specious and not particularly logical nor
>scientifically valid attack upon his hypothesis in re: solar powered
>vehicles.

I didn╒t intend for my questions to constitute a proof, but to encourage
a thought process which makes it clear how ridiculous solar-powered
vehicles are.

>The vagueness of your statements strongly suggest to this
>practicing scientist that you are as ignorant as he about the real
>specifics of this branch of engineering/science. If you want to be
>taken seriously on the net you will need to do quite a bit better than
>that. This medium is top-heavy with technologically literate users, and
>we tend to recognize the illiterati rather quickly.

I╒m far from scientifically illiterate!  I╒m an engineer for crying out loud!
But it doesn╒t take a rocket scientist to know that a solar-powered
car can╒t run in the dark, that theorientation to the sun will generally
be less than optimal, that the total energy falling on the car is very
small at any given time, and that solving these problems by making
it a battery-powered car with a solar charger would be better-off
being recharged from power generated elsewhere (from coal-fired
electricity plants, nuclear power plants, wood chips, marijuana oil,
solar satellites, wind power, or even stationary solar panels) for
price, efficiency, and convenience reasons.

So, Mr. Professional Scientist, tell me what makes you think that
solar-powered cars can ever be made to work?  Where╒s your
scientific argument?  Your response was nothing more than an
insult.

>The US pays out large sums for oil.

Gee, I thought individual US citizens were paying for their oil, not the
US in general.  Would you rather we paid out larger sums for soalr panels,
super car bodies, super tires, super roads, super electric engines, and
expensive little fairies which can make the sun shine at night?

>Some are readily quantifiable
>and direct (trade deficit) others are more tenuously related to the cost
>of life here (costs of maintaining armed forces in
>Kurdistan and Saudi Arabia,

I╒d rather rely on arabs for oil than rely on ╥Professional Scientists╙ such as
yourself to force me into cars which cannot run at night adn cost even
more.

>pollution costs, medical costs of those
>who are affected by foul air,

Just what costs are those?  Our air is not particularly foul.  In fact,
the air quality today is far superior to that of 100 years ago when the
streets were covered with horse manure.

>skin cancers resulting from ozone depletion,

Since when do cars produce ozone depletion?

Besides, why should a ╥professional scientist╙ such as yourself give
credence to speculations such as those which claim a significant
link between air pollution, ozone depletion, and skin cancer?

>etc.) Your view that a active attempt to reduce America's dependence on
>this stuff is somehow crackpot, scientifically and culturally naive
>or unacceptably 'Liberalistic' is dimwitted.

╥Dimwitted╙, eh?  That╒s quite a sophisticated ╥professional scientific╙
refutation of my position isn╒t it?  If you look back on your posting,
it consists almost entirely of ad hominem arguments, arbitrary asserions,
and arguments from authority.  Try better next time.

--Brian