NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/environm/14841

Text File | 1993-01-26 | 7.6 KB | 167 lines

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14841 soc.culture.usa:10107
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!morrow.stanford.edu!pangea.Stanford.EDU!silva
From: [e-mail] (Holly Silva)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Date: 26 Jan 1993 07:55:11 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

[e-mail] (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>[e-mail] (Holly Silva) writes:
>
>>        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,

    Intentional de-synchronization of traffic lights is stupid, but
I'd want to see some reputable article or study indicating that this
is actually going on. Your propensity for wild, unsupported statements
makes it difficult for me to accept this is true based on your assertion
alone.
    As for slower speed limits, if they are obviously punitive
(as in Palo Alto where I live) then I'm against them. If they're a
demonstrable aid to the over-all flow of traffic or to the public
safety, I'd have to tell you tough shit buddy. Live with it, or move
to Needles.

>    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?
>
    If we didn't you wouldn't have any roads to drive your car on
you idiot, and you certainly wouldn't have any worries about 'forceable'
reductions in the allowable speed limit; you'd be unable to do even 30
on a dirt track.

>>[The internal combustion engine] creates a considerable, well-measured
>>pollution problem.
>
>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.
>

    According to your posting address you live in Sylmar, which as
I remember has much better air than most of the L.A. basin. Even so,
I doubt you can miss it if you drive south into L.A. proper. I lived
in the Inland Empire when I was last in L.A., and commonly couldn't
see Mt. Baldy for the smog by noon in the summer. I worked at the
Claremont colleges, less than 10 miles from the summit as the crow
flies. I saw 'very real' impact from the air pollution there in
general. Lecture notes of mine went brown and brittle after sitting
in the back of my car for a few days one summer. It might have been
a sunlight effect alone, but it certainly wasn't one I'd ever encountered
before.

>>>    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?
>
    Having difficulty with this one, eh? Many of your following
rebuttals are much better. To wit:

>>        [T]here 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 character-
>ristics 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.
>

    Wow. Intelligent argument citing specific engineering/design
problems. Didn't think you had it in you. These are all significant
drawbacks/impediments to the implementation of solar powered individual
transportation. I don't know though, that I regard _all_ these problems
as being beyond solution.

>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,

    Energy storage devices. Improving energy storage devices
has been one of the main thrusts of research in this area for some
time now. The idea that solar-powered vehicles must be designed so
as to rely upon the sunlight falling upon them at the time they are
moving is a red herring and you know it. The single biggest drawback
to solar power for individual transport is the lack of adequate
energy storage mechanisms, and this may be the insurmountable techni-
cal problem in terms of solar power.
    I'm not especially hopeful about sunlight as a means for
powering individual vehicles. It's great for hot water heaters in
the desert southwest, but cars, not so good. I object to the idea
that one should categorically deny it to be an option using
vague allusions to thermodynamic first principles, however (...any
introductory physics text...).

>So, Mr. Professional Scientist, tell me what makes you think that
>solar-powered cars can ever be made to work?
>
    I don't know that they will ever be made to work. Likewise you
really don't know that they won't. Therein lies my objection to your
last post, and the position you took vis-a-vis solar power.
And it's Ms. Professional Scientist you twit.

>>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?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
    There is no a priori reason why non-fossil fuel sources of
energy should be now and forever more expensive than oil. In the
late 70's many alternate sources of energy were competitive with
oil or nearly so. And there is every reason to favor diversification
of our energy base for the sake of national security if not for
sweet, fuzzy reasons like making the air breatheable.

>>skin cancers resulting from ozone depletion,
>
>Since when do cars produce ozone depletion?
>
    Ah, how clever. You caught this one. They don't. Not unless
the air conditioner is running. I tend to fixate on ozone depletion
perhap because of the melanoma that was removed from my face 4
years ago, when I was 27.
>
>>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?

    Unsophisticated but fairly accurate, really. You've done a bit
better the second time around, after I essentially forced you to
respond with technical specifics. But you've been very careful to
restrict your discussion to the least plausible types of alternative
fuels and technologies. Left my little insert about compressed
natural gas quite alone, didn't you? And mass transit has to be
punitive in your worldview, doesn't it. Have you ever used mass
transit for any extended period of time? Something other than the
sporadic buses which serve for mass tranist in L.A.?
--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva            I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences    today.  You're in luck.             ||
|| Stanford University                             ||