Roy Innes, on the Green Man’s Burden. Contrary to Kermit, it’s not that hard being green. It’s only hard on the benighted objects of the greens’ affection.
“Eco-Manslaughter”
Roy Innes, on the Green Man’s Burden. Contrary to Kermit, it’s not that hard being green. It’s only hard on the benighted objects of the greens’ affection.
Saw The Launch
We watched it from the causeway west of Cocoa Beach. It was a beautiful evening for it–all of the clouds had cleared. I may put up some pictures tomorrow, if they look worth it. Off to bed now, a little after 1 AM.
Welcome, Lord British
In the non-space publication PC Gamer in the July issue, we find that video game celebrity and fellow Austinite Richard Garriott will have a regular column where we will find out about his PC Games from NC Soft like Tabula Rasa and also “what one says to Stephen Hawking while riding the ‘vomit comet.'”
While technically he rode ZEROG non-vomit comet with only 12 parabolas (which doesn’t give me much hope for the space editing in the magazine), Garriott’s space persona includes being Vice Chairman of Space Adventures, the company that has the most space tourism cost of goods sold. He is also the son of astronaut Owen Garriott.
So welcome, Lord British! And keep up the good work bringing science fiction to digital–and analog–life.
Fuel of the Future
From the May 2007 and May 1857 issue of Scientific American:
We believe that no particular use is made of the fluid petroleum, from the ‘tar springs’ of California, except as a lotion for bruises and rheumatic affections. It has a pungent odor, and although it can be made to burn with a pretty good light, its smell is offensive. This, perhaps, may be obviated by distilling it with some acid; we believe that this is not impossible in this age of advanced chemistry. If the offensive odor could be removed, a valuable and profitable business might be carried on in manufacturing burning fluid from it.
I find the hubris that we can predict we know what energy we will be using for lighting in 150 years astonishing. But whatever it is, if we project economically viable reserves vs. current usage, we can project we will run out of it. It’s a good thing we found a replacement for whale oil and tallow in time.
I think scientists and journalists misunderstand what ‘finite’ means when it comes to resources. Even a compact finite sphere can seem infinite if as you approach the edge, you slow down, the sphere grows, or your direction changes. When resources get scarce, price rises slows down usage, viable reserves grow, substitutes change usage patterns and magically–as if stayed by an invisible hand–we never run out of anything.
For thousands of years the only thing consistently getting more expensive is the value of human attention (Simon).
[Update from Rand, Saturday afternoon]
Per a comment:
Now, I consider myself a moderate libertarian and thus strongly disagree with them on this but while I am a strong believer in innovation and technological progress, the argument about finite resources does give me pause at times. What about industrial metal ores etc…?
Could we not at some point simply run out of materials to use?
I would point out that there’s no such thing as a non-renewable resource. Except, of course, time, and (ultimately) energy. It will be a very long time, though, before we run out of either, at least as a species.
By the way, Sam. What’s with all the marathon posting? Did you just lose your job? Not that I don’t appreciate it. Just sayin’…
Is There an Eco in Here?
I landed at the Ft. Lauderdale airport yesterday and there was a sign that said that to decrease water use, the airport has changed its thermostat from 74 to 78. Call me hopelessly brown, but it seems to me that they can attract more money to pay for more water via tourism if their airport is comfortable rather than politically correct. Water can be recycled, pulled out of the ocean and the air. The economic value of the savings is summarized by the market price for more water which is still measured in hundreds of dollars per acre foot. An acre foot is enough water to cover an acre one foot deep, or 325,851, gallons putting the price of water in gallons per cent. Skimping on use is pain for no gain. Or is masochism the main point of being Green?
More Comments Hygiene
I’ve banned Anonymous Moron (again). In case anyone wonders why, it was a comment here. But I would think that most people who have been reading his vile idiocy don’t need an explanation, and wonder why I didn’t do it sooner.
I Have To Laugh
Mark Whittington reads a prognosticative puff piece by various NASA officials, and thinks that it’s somehow a rebuttal to all the critics of the program.
What do you expect, Mark? That they’re going to say it’s not going to survive? It’s not like any of them are going to be around and accountable six years from now. Is there anything they could tell you that you wouldn’t believe? Did you know that the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?
Well, at least he admits his confusion.
Hungry for Ethanol
Food prices are up as corn prices have doubled to $4.50/bushel with the $0.51/gallon of ethanol subsidy. As the US is (soon to be was) a huge corn exporter, this is causing higher prices worldwide. Foreign Affairs in the May/June issue says that could lead to doubling the world hungry from 600 million to 1.2 billion. They hope that
relying more on sugar cane to produce ethanol in tropical countries would be more efficient than using corn and would not involve using a staple crop.
No, if sugar cane is more profitable than corn, it will also outcompete staples for land and labor until the price of staples is hungry high.
Scientific American makes the same mistake in the June issue:
[Jatropha, an oil crop] favors hot, dry conditions and hence an unlikely threat to rain forests. There is no trade-off between food and fuel either, because the oil is poisonous.
No, Jatropha will pull away farm equipment, labor and land from other crops driving up the price of every other crop.
Ethanol is an OK energy delivery system to convert solar energy, but if biofuels stay competitive with petroleum (via subsidies for now), all arable land will be converted to corn and other energy crops until the food crop prices are driven up enough to be competitive with the energy crops.
The only way to bring the corn price down is to either bring a multiple of the current acreage under cultivation (all US arable land devoted to corn would get us 12% of petroleum consumption) or reducing the corn/ethanol subsidy.
Space Solar Support?
Taylor Dinerman calls for space solar power in this week’s The Space Review. He trots out hydrogen as an alternative energy source. No–it’s an alternative energy delivery method. Last time I checked, to get hydrogen, we had to use another fuel source and lose energy to crack the hydrogen. To make space solar power viable, we need an advance that will advantage space solar power to terrestrial solar power. Does this meet the objective:
One technology that might radically reduce the weight requirements for these systems is the technique pioneered at the University of Notre Dame where single-walled carbon nanotubes are added to a film made of titanium-dioxide nanoparticles, doubling the efficiency of converting ultraviolet light into electrons. Any solar cell technology that could reach conversion factors of over 50% or even higher would reduce the size and weight of an SPS and thus make it easier and cheaper to build and launch.
It also makes terrestrial solar power potentially reach conversion factors of over 50% too. To make space solar better than terrestrial solar, we need launch costs to be no more than 3x manufacturing costs per kg if space solar is 4x as efficient. With manufacturing costs $350/kg, we need launch costs $1000/kg to make space solar viable.