American Dreams 2003

[ReadyontheRight]

1770s - USA's best thought leaders establish and defend a new form of representative goverment.

1860s - Both sides develop cutting edge artillery, iron-clad ships, submarines, new medical treatments and other innovative, new to the world technology in a US Civil War - changing the nature of warfare forever.

1900s - USA builds the Panama Canal and establishes the national park system

1940s - USA improves weapons, aircraft, naval, productivity and other technologies - including harnessing the power of the atom - to save he world from Fascism.

1960 - USA PUTS MEN ON THE FREAKIN' MOON!

2000s - USA devotes Billions of dollars to research a technology that...might...someday replace our cars with...umm...a slightly different kind of car.

(By the way, the most efficient source of hydrogen is... you guessed it...gasoline.)

I know George Bush coopted the hydrogen vehicle thing to take an issue away from the Democrats. I'm glad the Republicans are learning to play the game, but this is just a symptom of how small our dreams have become.

I lay this directly at the feet of the Liberals and Greens who hate America and see life as a zero sum game.

What do you think?

 

[PATH]

Who knows what George is thinking. It sounds futuristic and forward thinking. Maybe they'll work on cold fusion>

 

[ReadyontheRight]

It sounds futuristic and forward thinking. Maybe they'll work on cold fusion.

I think development of new technologies is better suited to private enterprise - unfettered by heavy taxes and regulation.

With the Federal government involved, we'll throw a bunch of money at a few university scientists to study hydrogen power, likely with little or no real results because they just want the grants, not the marketing rights to actually make something that works.

We already have a pretty effective source of transportation and an infrastructure to support it - cars powered by gasoline. Why do we need to spend tax dollars to replace it in baby steps just to keep a few starry-eyed environmentalists happy?

Jet packs! I want jet packs!

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Hydrogen is a lot of futurist's wet dream because it gets us around the impending decline in petroleum, while maintaining the infastructure and mobile economy of the modern world. You're absolutely right about "a slightly different kind of car." Hydrogen is, in no case, an actual source of energy. It's a carrier or storage system for energy. It takes a lot of energy, in the form of electricity, to split hydrogen from water. Most of which ain't gonna come from sustainable sources any time in the near future. It takes less energy to split it off from hydrocarbons like petroleum, but it's still a losing proposition.

At best, it transforms energy from some stationary forms of energy production to a more mobile form. It's also 100% cleaner at the point of use. I don't know if it will be usable in air transport or not. The problem is that there isn't any form of energy out there that has the calories/mass ratio that petroleum has, except maybe alcohol, but that, like hydrogen, currently takes more energy to produce than you get out of it. Most more abundant forms of energy are essentially only usable in stationary facilities.

The wealth in fossil fuels we have been using are a legacy of life millions of year ago. Civilization will probably never have such an opportunity again. To some extent, it was used to advance us along the road of knowledge, material security, and culture. That's all good. But we have also whizzed a lot of it away in a couple of generations for trivial uses with little thought for the future.

A real visionary would have to look at how society is going to restructure to exist in a post-petroleum environment. I would like that restructuring to be voluntary and with minimal disruption. But the longer we put off looking for real alternatives, the less likely that will be.

 

[dustind]

i think we should use Tesla Turbine engines, they can run off of anythingthat moves (steam, any fuel, flowing liquids) not to mention you can get 1000hp out of something half the size of modern car engine, and it only has one moveing part, its over 95% efficent, unlike gasoline at about 35%, and deseil at 45%, or normal turbines at 65%

you can make hydrogen/oxygen out of water with paten# 4,394,230, it can convert water at almost 100% efficency, no high temps or pressure needed, it looks like a spark plug that water flows through, my friend built one, but last time i checked the patent was pulled off of the web

 

[M67]

...cutting edge artillery, iron-clad ships, submarines ... USA builds the Panama Canal ... weapons, aircraft, naval, productivity and other technologies ... USA PUTS MEN ON THE FREAKIN' MOON!

All well and good. But:

I think development of new technologies is better suited to private enterprise - unfettered by heavy taxes and regulation.

What's really the difference between putting tax money into the above government programs or into "environmental" technology? Unless I'm mistaken, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program were hardly "private". Isn't it just different cases of government subsidizing private contractors, although with slightly different "justifications"? Oops, I used the "s"-word, please excuse an ignorant European. I know that subsidizing is something European governments do when they support private industry, as opposed to when the US government buys $5000 hammers, which is private enterprise. Sorry about the slip-up.

Putting a man on the moon wasn't really that important in itself, except for the symbolism and prestige. The technological spin-off is what has changed our lives and boosted certain sectors of private enterprise. Bubba Gates wouldn't have made a dime from selling software if it hadn't been for military and space research funded by US and other taxpayers' money, leading to miniaturization, transistorization etc. and eventually the electronics and computer industry we have today. I'm sure government funded research into new fuel technology will lead to useful spin-offs in the near future and that someone will be able to make money from that.

As Malone LaVeigh says, petroleum is a limited resource. A resource that may have more important uses than just being convenient and cheap fuel. Plastics, nylon and probably a zillion other things. Just imagine, if we burn all our oil in our car engines, it could mean no more plastic to make Glocks... which some people around here probably see as a good thing.

Clean fuel could also mean no global warming. As a Norwegian, considering the temperature this morning, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

And alternative fuel technology could lead to a drop in oil prices. Again as a Norwegian, I'm not sure I like that. Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia was the only country in the world exporting more oil than we do...

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Unless I'm mistaken, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program were hardly "private". Isn't it just different cases of government subsidizing private contractors, although with slightly different "justifications"?

As I said in another post, the atomic bomb and walking on the moon balance each other out as faderal projects nicely -- kind of a ying/yang thing. Both were expensive, long-term projects that inspired dedication through patriotism. It made sense for the government to do these projects at the time, but that doesn't mean that it's the government's place to invent things. The government even almost screwed up the M1 Garand because they couldn't decide on a caliber - luckily John C. Garand guessed they would change their minds.

Internal combustion, automobiles, airplanes, desktop computers, the world-wide-web (which made the government's internet usable), the telephone, television, radio, motion pictures, washing machines, recorded music, harnessing/delivering the power of electricity, the printing press, skis, electric lefse pans (gotta throw in a few things for Norway) etc...etc... All were invented and marketed by individuals, not by any government or government subsidies.

Imagine trying to invent something as revolutionary as the automobile or airplane in today's society. 1) The government would legislate the space to use it to where it was unusable. 2) Potential lawsuits would make it unsellable 3) Environmentalists would protest it and get constant media coverage.

The point of my post is to say that our dreams have become too small and that liberals and Greens are dedicating a lot of efforts to keep it that way.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

It's great to have a dialogue with someone in Norway. Isn't technology wonderful?

As Malone LaVeigh says, petroleum is a limited resource. A resource that may have more important uses than just being convenient and cheap fuel. Plastics, nylon and probably a zillion other things. Just imagine, if we burn all our oil in our car engines, it could mean no more plastic to make Glocks... which some people around here probably see as a good thing.

Environmentalists in the 1970s built models that said we were supposed to be completely out of petroleum by now. IF we run out of petroleum, some enterprising individual will come up with an alternative, but for now gasoline and the internal combustion engine are a cheap, efficient combination that drives almost every aspect of the economies of most countries.

Clean fuel could also mean no global warming.

The earth gets warmer and colder in long-term cycles all by itself. The hypothesis of human-caused global warming through the greenhouse effect is a sham. Efforts to reduce pollution are great, but the religion of global warming has become a political cause that justifies all sorts of attacks on our freedom. Kind of like Orwell's continual war.

 

[Kaylee]

I don't know if it will be usable in air transport or not.

Well, it worked fabulously before... until the Hindenberg anyway.


Anyhow... the major technological innovations you mention... 1860's, 1940's, 1960's... interesting timing. Amazing how nothing gets the creative juices flowing like babarians at the gate. I guess nation-states have a few advantages anyhow...

In all seriousness though ... I think it's not that our dreams are any the less -- only that the biggies are more apparent after the flow of history has given some perspective to 'em. The whole "digital revolution" thing will be at least as big an achievment in the long view than the Apollo missions ever were, I'm certain. And that was just these last few years.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this time period... from now till about 2050.. will be remembered as one of the great watersheds of history. There's just so much going on just under the surface.. pretty darn cool time to be alive actually.

-K

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I think it's not that our dreams are any the less -- only that the biggies are more apparent after the flow of history has given some perspective to 'em.

Excellent point. Humans will always dream and innovate. I just get tired of so many folks looking at the government to either do it for them or stop the innovation of others.